Once scientists have come to the conclusion that space-time is not fundamental but emergent, now many things will change in physics and cosmology. One such change is that cosmologists can no longer hold that the universe has originated from nothing.

This is because an entity that is emergent cannot emerge from just anything or nothing; it can emerge from some particular entity or entities only. Those scientists who are saying that the universe can and will create itself from nothing because there is a force such as gravity, are also saying along with it that space-time can also originate from nothing. So, here they are claiming that at the beginning of the universe space-time was fundamental because it had come straight from nothing, thus not requiring the prior presence of any particular entity/entities from which only it could emerge in case it was emergent.

But whatever knowledge scientists have acquired about the external world is from the present universe only. From the present universe, scientists have acquired the knowledge about space-time that it is not fundamental. So, if they now claim that at the beginning of the universe space-time was fundamental, then our question to them will be: From where have they acquired the knowledge that space-time was fundamental at the beginning of the universe? Is it from the present universe? Or, is it from some supernatural source? Or, is it their intuition?

Have they themselves observed the universe directly coming from nothing? So, what is their source of knowledge that space-time was fundamental at the beginning?

[There will be lots of repetitions here. It is unavoidable because this is the full and final version.]

God is not only described by the theists as omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, but as spaceless and timeless as well.

There is a reason as to why God is always described as spaceless and timeless. I have already shown here1 that if we go through some simple logical steps, then we will arrive at the conclusion that a creator God will always be spaceless, timeless and immaterial.

There is one more reason as to why this creator of the universe will have to be spaceless and timeless. It has already been shown here2 that if anything exists at all, if even a single speck of dust exists, then ultimately there will have to be something that will be neither in space nor in time, as otherwise there will be an infinite regress.

So, there are at least two reasons as to why the creator of the universe will be spaceless and timeless. One reason is that the creator will always be prior to the creation event. The other reason is that in order to stop the infinite regress the creator will also have to be spaceless and timeless because someone or something spaceless and timeless can only stop this regress. If God as the creator of the universe cannot stop the infinite regress, then this silly and nonsensical question will repeatedly be asked: Who created the creator?

Now, is there any evidence that there is such a God?

If there is indeed a spaceless and timeless God, then, first of all, it must have to be ascertained that something is there in nature that is spaceless and timeless. Then only we will have a chance to ask the next question here as to whether this spaceless and timeless thing has got consciousness or not.

Scientists who are working with the quantum theory of gravity are now saying that space and time are not fundamental entities at all, but epiphenomena arising from other yet more fundamental entities. Even string theorists, causal set theorists, and scientists working with loop quantum gravity – all of them are saying the same thing that space and time are not fundamental. Below are some relevant quotes:

1) While different approaches to quantum gravity are often based on rather different physical principles, many of them share an important suggestion: that in some way spacetime as we find it in our existing theories is not a fundamental ingredient of the world, but instead, like rainbows, plants or people, `emerges’ from some deeper, non-spatiotemporal physics. What replaces spacetime and what aspects of spacetime remain in the ontology of fundamental physics differs, as one would expect, from approach to approach. But the idea that the universe and its material content might not, at bottom, be `in’ space and time, that these seemingly fundamental ingredients are just appearances of something more fundamental, would, if borne out, shatter our conception of the universe as profoundly as any scientific revolution before.
-The emergence of spacetime in quantum theories of gravity by Nick Huggett and Christian Wuthrich

2) Space (or spacetime) does not exist fundamentally: it emerges somehow from a more fundamental non-spatio-temporal structure. This intriguing claim appears in various approaches to quantum mechanics and quantum gravity.
– Composing the World Out of Nowhere

3) In quantum gravity, research programs such as loop quantum gravity state that the relativist spacetime is not fundamentally real and emerges somehow from a non-spatio-temporal ontology.
– Ibid

4) “If there were a dividing line between the quantum and the classical worlds, we could use the space and time of the classical world to provide a framework for describing quantum processes. But without such a dividing line—and, indeed, without a truly classical world—we lose this framework. We must explain space and time as somehow emerging from fundamentally spaceless and timeless physics.

“That insight, in turn, may help us reconcile quantum physics with that other great pillar of physics, Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which describes the force of gravity in terms of the geometry of spacetime. General relativity assumes that objects have well-defined positions and never reside in more than one place at the same time—in direct contradiction with quantum physics. Many physicists, such as Stephen Hawking of the University of Cambridge, think that relativity theory must give way to a deeper theory in which space and time do not exist. Classical spacetime emerges out of quantum entanglements through the process of decoherence.”
– Vlatko Vedral, Living in a quantum world, Scientific American, June 2011

5) “There aren’t many things in quantum gravity that everyone agrees on,” says Eleanor Knox, a philosopher at King’s College London who specializes in the philosophy of physics. “Yet the one thing many people seemed to agree on in quantum gravity was that we were going to have to cope with space and time not being fundamental.”
– Are Space and Time Fundamental? – The nature of reality – PBS by Kate Becker, Mar 2012

6) Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, “Everyone in string theory is convinced…that spacetime is doomed. But we don’t know what it’s replaced by.” Fields medalist Edward Witten also thought that space and time may be “doomed.” Nathan Seiberg of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton said, “I am almost certain that space and time are illusions. These are primitive notions that will be replaced by something more sophisticated.”
– Donald D. Hoffman in The Abdication Of Space-Time (Edge.org)

Below are two quotes that show how scientists are ultimately moving towards a radically new physics of no space and no time from their centuries-old physics of space and time:

1) Today's scientists seeking to combine quantum mechanics with Einstein's theory of gravity (the general theory of relativity) are convinced that we are on the verge of another major upheaval, one that will pinpoint the more elemental concepts from which time and space emerge. Many believe this will involve a radically new formulation of natural law in which scientists will be compelled to trade the space-time matrix within which they have worked for centuries for a more basic ''realm'' that is itself devoid of time and space.
– Brian Greene in The Time We Thought We Knew (The New York Times)

2) …[W]hile we may not have experimental data to tell us about physics near the Planck scale, we do have an ocean of “theoretical data” in the wonderful mathematical structures hidden in quantum field theory and string theory. These structures beg for a deeper explanation. The standard formulation of field theory hides these amazing features as a direct consequence of its deference to space-time locality. There must be a new way of thinking about quantum field theories, in which space-time locality is not the star of the show and these remarkable hidden structures are made manifest. Finding this reformulation might be analogous to discovering the least-action formulation of classical physics; by removing spacetime from its primary place in our description of standard physics, we may be in a better position to make the leap to the next theory, where space-time finally ceases to exist.
- Nima Arkani-Hamed in The Future of Fundamental Physics

From the above quotes, I think it has become clear that scientists do no longer hold that spacetime is fundamental. Rather, they are now saying that it emerges from some deeper, non-spatiotemporal physics, or from fundamentally spaceless and timeless physics. In this connection, it should be stated that there cannot be any non-spatiotemporal physics if there is nothing non-spatiotemporal in nature, as there cannot be any black hole physics if there is no black hole in the universe. Similarly, it can be said that there cannot be any spaceless and timeless physics if there is nothing spaceless and timeless in nature.

What this amounts to is that scientists are now saying that there is something non-spatiotemporal, or spaceless and timeless in nature from which spacetime has emerged.

Here we should also mention that ‘non-spatiotemporal’ is the new scientific term for the old term ‘spaceless and timeless’. Space and time are now combined into one single entity: spacetime. The adjective form of the word ‘spacetime’ is ‘spatiotemporal’ and its negative form is ‘non-spatiotemporal’. So instead of saying ‘spaceless and timeless’ they are now saying ‘non-spatiotemporal’. But the meaning remains the same.

I have written above that if there is indeed a spaceless and timeless God, then, first of all, it must have to be ascertained that something is there in nature that is spaceless and timeless. Here we see that it has already been ascertained by the scientists that there is something spaceless and timeless in nature from which spacetime has emerged.

As our existence is dependent upon the existence of spacetime and as this spacetime has emerged from something spaceless and timeless, so in a sense, our existence is also dependent upon the existence of this spaceless and timeless thing. This is because if it were not there, then in that case spacetime would not have been there at all. And if spacetime were not there, then we would not have been here. So, all our existence is ultimately dependent upon the existence of this spaceless and timeless thing.

It now remains to be seen as to whether this spaceless and timeless thing is conscious or not. Regarding this, we want to convey the following message to the non-believers in general:

‘It is not the job of the scientists to manufacture truth but to discover it. If there is a spaceless and timeless God, then scientists will also discover it one day. Up till now, they have discovered that there is something spaceless and timeless in nature from which space-time has emerged.

‘So, scientists have been able to deliver this much up till now. For the rest of the bags and baggage, we will wait.’

Yes, we will have to wait for the delivery of the requisite goods from scientists.

Reference:
1. https://www.11prompt.com/?q=node/557
2. https://www.11prompt.com/?q=node/537

As theists frequently claim about God that he is outside space and time, so some atheists have mistakenly thought that this means God is outside the universe. As there is nothing outside the universe, so God does not exist.

But this is not true. Repeated observations of the phenomenon of quantum entanglement have compelled the scientists to come to the conclusion that at some deeper layer in the universe there is no space and time. That is why the connection between two entangled particles is established instantaneously, defying all the space-time separation between the two.

This shows that our universe is multi-layered. At its uppermost layer, there is spacetime; but at some deeper layer, there is no spacetime. The universe is spaceless and timeless at that layer.

So, if this spaceless and timeless God is to be there at all, then he need not have to be outside the universe. He can very easily accommodate himself within some deeper layer of this universe. That is why God is also called all-pervading.

So, our conclusion is this: our universe is multi-layered and God can reside in it at some deeper layer.

If there is a God at all, then any evidence for the existence of that God must come from science only because the language of science is the only language that will be the same everywhere in the universe.

If there is a God, then that God will not be the God of a small tribe on this earth; neither will he be the God of this earth only. Rather, he will be the God of the entire universe. The current estimate is that there are about two trillions of galaxies in the observable part of our universe. If we now suppose that there is at least one planet in each galaxy on which human or human-like creatures have appeared, then there are at least two trillion human or human-like civilizations in the observable part of the universe. So, if God is to keep any evidence of his existence in the universe, then he will have to keep it in a language that will be equally understood by all these two trillion civilizations. And that language can only be the language of science.

That is the reason as to why any evidence for the existence of God must come from science only.

There is one more reason as to why this evidence must come from science only, the reason being that the God-question is essentially an existential question, the question being whether there is any God at all. As this is an existential question, so this cannot be settled by logic alone. By logic alone we cannot decide that there is a God; or, by logic alone we cannot decide that there is no God. In both the cases, we need some evidence and this evidence can come from science only.

That is the reason as to why all the traditional arguments for the existence of God that were known to man for more than two thousand years, have so far failed to convince the non-believers that there is a justified reason to believe in the existence of God, because all these traditional arguments have tried to settle an essentially existential question by means of logic alone which they cannot do.

I have already stated that any evidence for the existence of God must come from science only. So, without much advancement in science, it was not possible to get any such evidence from there. Only when science has made some progress, then only we begin to get such shreds of evidence from science.

1) God is mostly described by the theists as spaceless and timeless. In the first decade of the 20th century, two equations in SR have shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless. At the speed of light, time totally stops and even infinite distance becomes zero for light. The first one is the scientific explanation for timelessness and the second one is the same for spacelessness.

2) Then in the 21st century, scientists have come to the conclusion that spacetime is not fundamental and that it has emerged from something non-spatiotemporal in nature. It has already been explained earlier that 'non-spatiotemporal' is the new scientific term for the old term 'spaceless and timeless'. That means scientists are now saying that there is something spaceless and timeless in nature from which spacetime has emerged.

3) Here it should be remembered that modern science began from the time of Copernicus (1473-1543). Several centuries have passed after that and in the 21st century only scientists have come to the conclusion that there is something spaceless and timeless in nature. So, it is quite logical to expect that they might require some more centuries for coming to the conclusion that this spaceless and timeless thing is actually a conscious being.

In one YouTube comment thread one atheist has remarked that it is really infuriating that all the apologist arguments that he has seen presented so far have ultimately failed to provide any proof for the existence of god. All their arguments are nothing but playing around with definitions of words and literally just throwing an explanation into the gaps of our knowledge, thus showing that every single god argument is essentially a god of the gaps argument, or that they feel good or special by being able to give that argument. Although it is not the case that he does not want there to be a god, yet he hopes that this god will not be the genocidal maniac presented in the Bible.

I replied to him in the following manner:

‘If there is a God at all, then that God is not the God of this earth only, that God is the God of the entire universe. On this earth, many myths have been created around this God, but these myths cannot have any meaning and significance to the other civilizations, if there are any in the outer space, as the myths if created by the other civilizations in the outer space will not have any meaning and significance to us. So God should not at all be judged by any myths created by any religion on earth. This point should always be remembered.

‘Regarding the question as to whether there is any evidence for the existence of God, you can read my article ‘God, the full and final version’ here:

https://www.11prompt.com/?q=node/577

‘However, one cautionary remark here. Please do not try to misinterpret me, either willingly or unwillingly, because atheists are very much prone to do that. In the above article, I have shown as to why a creator of the universe will always be spaceless and timeless. Then I have also shown that scientists in the 21st century have come to the conclusion that spacetime is not fundamental at all and that it has emerged from something non-spatiotemporal/spaceless and timeless in nature.

‘So, this much is confirmed by science up till now that there is something spaceless and timeless in nature and I have also shown that God will always be spaceless and timeless.

‘Nothing further has been claimed or asserted by me that this shows there is a God. Rather, I have written that in order to come to the conclusion that this spaceless and timeless thing has got consciousness, we will have to wait for the delivery of the requisite goods from the scientists.’

After getting my reply, this atheist becomes silent. But it is not so easy to silence all the atheists at the same time and so there immediately appears another atheist in the scene and states that my understanding of present-day cosmology is biased and outdated. This is because there are at least two cosmological models that do not require a first cause. These are: 1) Hawking’s no boundary proposal and 2) Penrose’s conformal cyclic cosmology. Both of these models are mathematically coherent and the Penrose model may even have some physical evidence.

My reply to this atheist was a bit lengthy, but he also became silent after getting the reply. Below it is:

‘Your comment shows that perhaps you have not yet fully understood what it means that spacetime is emergent. An entity is emergent means it cannot emerge from just anything or nothing; it can emerge from some pre-existing entity or entities only. In the case of spacetime, this pre-existing entity is something non-spatiotemporal. In brief, we can call it NSE (non-spatiotemporal entity).

‘This NSE must be pre-existent in each and every cosmological model of the universe in which it is an accepted fact that the universe is expanding from an initial zero size and that it is not static. In some of the models, the expansion of the universe will stop after some time and then it will begin to contract and eventually it will come to a zero size. From there another phase of the universe will begin. In some other models, this expansion does not stop and nobody knows for how long the universe will go on expanding. But in every cosmological model that has been presented to us so far, this expansion of the universe from an initial zero size is there. That means in each and every cosmological model presented to us, spacetime has a beginning. Spacetime being emergent cannot begin/emerge from anything else other than NSE. Here there will be no beginning of spacetime, rather the emergence of spacetime from some pre-existing entity.

‘Here it might be objected: why can it not be the case that spacetime was fundamental at the beginning of the expansion of the universe and that it became emergent later on only? Here our question will be: Not from any theory, but from the external world, can scientists give any concrete evidence that spacetime was fundamental at the beginning of the expansion of the universe?

‘Here I will give you one example for making my point clear. In the special theory of relativity, there are two equations that show that at the speed of light time totally stops and that even an infinite distance becomes zero for light. The first one is the scientific explanation for timelessness and the second one is the same for spacelessness. So, it can be said that SR has shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless. It can also be shown by some simple logic that a timeless entity is also a deathless entity. So, we can now say SR has shown how it is possible to be spaceless, timeless and immortal. Based on this, can we jump to the conclusion that there is a spaceless, timeless and immortal being, aka God? Will anybody allow us? Will you allow us?

‘Here you will say: “We want some concrete evidence that there is a God. Only theory or maths will not do.”

‘We are saying the same thing here also: “We want some concrete evidence that spacetime was fundamental at the beginning of the expansion of the universe. Only theory or maths will not do.”’

My remark: There is a difference between science and religion. In religion, everything is accepted by faith alone, no evidence being required for any claim made. But in science, this is not so, because in science we do not accept anything by faith; we require some evidence for every claim made by the scientists. So, if scientists now claim that spacetime was fundamental when the universe began to expand, then they must provide some suitable evidence in support of their contention that it was fundamental at that time.

In one YouTube comment thread, someone has written: 'Furthermore, the concept of being spaceless and timeless is the same as not existing at all'.

God is said to be spaceless and timeless. As this is an extraordinary claim, so a shred of extraordinary evidence is required for it.

Happily, a shred of extraordinary evidence for it has been kept in nature for the non-believers in general by the creative force of the universe.

There are two theories in science that are treated by the scientists not only as a theory but as a fact as well. These two theories are Darwin’s theory of evolution and Einstein’s special theory of relativity. Darwin’s theory of evolution is not relevant here for our discussion and so, I will not say anything about it.

Below is a quote about the special theory of relativity:

‘Special relativity has been exhaustively tested (relativistic effects have been verified all the way down to walking speed), and works so perfectly that it is now held up as the yardstick against which all new theories are tested.’
(Ref: Q: How/Why are Quantum Mechanics and Relativity incompatible? Ask a mathematician/Ask a physicist)

In the special theory of relativity (SR), there are two equations that show that at the speed of light time totally stops and that any distance light has to travel becomes zero for it. Even infinite distance becomes zero for light! If a certain volume of space (say, a room) is filled up with light only, then due to these two properties of the light volume of that room would become zero and time also would totally stop there. If the entire universe is filled up with light only, then in that case also the volume of the entire universe would be zero. As zero volume means no space, so in this way, a spaceless and timeless state would obtain.

As human beings, we have a physical body. This physical body has a certain volume. So, as human beings, we occupy a certain amount of space within the universe that is equal to the volume of our physical body. And we will occupy that amount of space for so long we will remain alive.

If we claim about the light that it is within the space-time of the universe, then we will have to specify these two things about light: how much space does it occupy and for how long does it occupy that space.

Let us take one concrete example. A photon coming from a star lying at a distance of ten billion light-years from the earth will take ten billion years of earth’s time to reach the surface of the earth. As per SR, the distance from the place of origin of light to its ultimate destination is zero and time taken for light to arrive at its destination from its place of origin is also zero. That means as per SR there is no space in between the star and the earth for light to exist. Similarly, for light, there is no time to exist because its total travel time has also become zero. So, as per SR for these entire 10 billion years of earth’s time light will occupy zero space for zero time within the space-time of the universe. This is as good as saying that for this entire length of earth’s time light will be neither in space nor in time. Then it will be absorbed by someone or something on the surface of the earth.

So, if one claims that for something to exist it must be within some space and time, then as per her light does not exist.

However, one can claim that as a theory SR is wrong because it shows light occupies zero space for zero time. In that case, she will have to provide an alternate theory that will replace SR and that will show that light occupies some space for some time.

Below is a suggestion on how SR can be modified:

So far as I can remember, there are these two equations in Einstein’s special theory of relativity:
l1 = l(1-v2/c2)1/2……. (1)
t1 = t((1-v2/c2)1/2……. (2)

From the above two equations two conclusions can be drawn that are as follows:
1) Time and distance are not absolute, they are relative;
2) At light speed, both time and distance become unreal.

Now reality may be such that
1) Time and distance are only relative, but nowhere unreal (A),
2) Time and distance are relative as well as unreal (somewhere) (B).

If reality is A, then the above two equations are not required at all to represent that reality; it can be equally represented by the following two equations:
l1 = l(1-v2/xc2)1/2……. (3)
t1 = t((1-v2/xc2)1/2……. (4)

In (3) and (4) above, x will have a value greater than one but less than infinity. But it cannot have a value equal to one or infinity. If the value of x is one, then we will go back to Einstein’s equations, whereas if its value equals infinity, then we will have Newton’s equations instead.

From (3) and (4) above, it can clearly be seen that time and distance will be relative as before, but they will never be unreal even at the speed of light due to the presence of the factor 1/x in the equations.

Newton’s equations have been rejected because now we have come to realize that there are no such things as absolute space or absolute time.

If reality is A, but not B, then the time has also come to reject Einstein’s equations as well, and to replace them with (3) and (4) above.

Einstein’s equations will be required if, and only if, it is agreed upon that somewhere out there, there is a region where space and time are unreal (an ideal abode for a spaceless and timeless God).

Below is a quote from the Mindscape presented by theoretical physicist Sean Carroll. Here, two physicists, Carroll and Leonard Susskind are discussing the fine-tuning of parameters and the existence of the multiverse.

//1:02:46 SC: Well, let me bring it back to sort of wrap things up, here. Let’s bring it back to where we started in string theory, because there’s another obvious set of questions about gravity and space time, which are the cosmological questions.
1:02:58 LS: Oh yes.
1:03:00 SC: The universe, and so forth. And you alluded cagily to the idea that we should take seriously things that we can’t, even in principle, observe, if they’re predicted by our theories. One example of that is the cosmological multiverse, which seems to be part of the string theory story. Do you still think that that’s true?
1:03:16 LS: I think so. I even wrote a book about it.
1:03:19 SC: Yeah, The Cosmic Landscape.
1:03:21 LS: Right.
1:03:21 SC: We’ll plug that book too.
1:03:23 LS: Yeah. Let me put it this way, I don’t think anybody has a better idea for resolving some of the great puzzles of cosmology, the great theoretical puzzles of cosmology. In particular the very, very strange, what are called the fine-tunings, that we seem to see in nature. That parameters are extremely finely adjusted and we don’t know why. There’s of course, a lot of almost anger at this idea of a multiverse and so forth.
1:03:57 SC: We’ve both felt it, yes. [chuckle]
1:03:58 LS: Yeah, we both felt it. My answer is always, “Yeah, what do you have that’s better?” And the answer is never anybody has anything better. So, it’s the best idea we have right now for understanding why the parameters of nature are what they are. We don’t have a better idea. And that’s about all I would say about it with real conviction. Could it turn out to be wrong? I suppose so, but I don’t see how. To say that I think it could turn out to be wrong, is to say that I see some other possibility, and I don’t.
1:04:30 SC: And so just to be clear. The “it” in this case is the idea that there are regions of space very far away…
1:04:34 LS: Yes, yes.
1:04:34 SC: Where the local laws of physics look different, that’s the multiverse we’re thinking about.//1

Here Leonard Susskind is saying that some parameters are extremely finely adjusted and that they don't know why. And he is saying that there is no better idea for resolving this great puzzle of cosmology than the multiverse. He is also saying that the multiverse is the best idea that they have right now for understanding why the parameters of nature are what they are.

It is also a fact that there is no evidence for any multiverse up till now. Moreover, inflation theory was developed in the 20th-century when the prevailing view among the scientists was that space-time was fundamental. But in the 21st-century the prevailing view among them is that it is not fundamental but emergent.

Hyun Seok Yang in his article 'Emergent Spacetime: Reality or Illusion?' 2 has shown that in the case of emergent space-time there would be inflation, but there would be no eternal inflation. Inflation will stop after generating only one universe. So in the case of emergent space-time, there would be no multiverse.

That means God and the multiverse have the same status regarding evidence. Atheists claim that there is no evidence for the existence of God and scientists have also failed to provide any evidence for the multiverse.

So, when scientists are saying that the multiverse is the best idea that they have right now for understanding why the parameters of nature are what they are, that means here they are actually bringing in something unknown to us for explaining something known to us.

As per the atheists, theists’ argument for God is this: We don't know, therefore God.

Physicists’ argument for the multiverse is this: We don't know, therefore the multiverse.

Reference:
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTSdPSOcdjI&t=3620s
2. http://arXiv.org/abs/1504.00464

Fight against Coronavirus: What every one & community can do now to decrease the spread of the coronavirus!

Physicists are now saying that spacetime is emergent. Theoretical physicist Sean Carroll has already authored and published a book: ‘Something deeply hidden: quantum worlds and the emergence of spacetime’.

But, do these physicists actually know what emergent spacetime signifies? Perhaps they will be shocked and embarrassed if they come to know that this signifies that there is something eternal and everlasting in nature.

Any change can occur either in space or in time. A hot cup of tea being at the same place on a table may become less hot with the passage of time. This is one sort of change. The teacup may be removed from the table after it has become empty. This is another sort of change. In one sort of change, the teacup is moved through space from one place to another place. In the other sort of change, the teacup is not moved through space, but its overall physical state changes from its earlier state. In both cases, both space and time are required for such changes to occur.

Therefore, if something is not within any space and time, then no change can occur in it. It cannot move through space from one place to another, because there is no space outside it. Its overall physical state cannot alter with time, because no clock ticks outside it. So, it will remain the same forever. And thus, it will be eternal and everlasting. This is nothing but simple logic.

Emergent spacetime implies one more thing: multiverse is impossible. Spacetime is emergent means the source from which spacetime has emerged cannot be within any spacetime, because there cannot be any spacetime prior to its emergence. Something is not within any spacetime means there is no spacetime outside it. As there is no spacetime outside it, so there cannot be anything outside it, because for anything to exist outside it spacetime is required. So, neither can there be any other universe outside it.

Scientist Hyun Seok Yang has shown in a paper that in case of emergent spacetime there will be inflation, but there will be no eternal inflation. Inflation will stop after generating only one universe. So, in case of emergent spacetime, there will be no multiverse.

By logic alone we have also arrived at the same conclusion that in case of emergent spacetime there will be no multiverse.

Wave-function of the universe also shows multiverse is impossible. Everybody knows wave-function equation of the universe does not contain any time-factor, which means it is not possible for us to know how the wave-function of the universe is changing with time. As the wave-function of the universe always remains the same, so that will mean the universe also always remains the same; it does not change with time.

But how is this possible? This is because we know very well that change is always taking place within the universe. So, how can it be that the universe as a whole always remains the same?

But changes within the universe do not mean that the universe as a whole is also undergoing change. If we want to measure how the universe is changing as a whole, then we will have to place the entire universe in some space-time frame that will have to be outside the universe. This space-time frame cannot be within the universe, because we want to place the entire universe in that frame. Then with respect to a clock running in the outer space of the universe we will have to find out which state the universe was in at an earlier moment and which state it is in at present. These data will then give us the necessary information for evaluating how much change has occurred in the universe as a whole. However, if there is no spacetime outside the universe, that is, if no clock is running in the outer space of the universe, then neither will there be any earlier moment for the universe nor will there be any later moment. And the universe will be in a timeless state, unchanged forever.

As the wave-function of the universe does not contain any time-factor, so on the basis of the above analysis we can say that this wave-function indicates that there is no spacetime outside the universe, which will further mean multiverse is impossible.

There is a reason as to why the first cause must have to be uncaused. We can find this reason from our concept of The Whole.

The concept of The Whole is an exceptionally extraordinary concept because this concept not only gives us the evidence that there is a God but at the same time it also gives us the reason why that God must be uncaused.

We define The Whole in this way: The Whole is that which contains within itself everything that exists. As per this definition, nothing can ever exist outside The Whole, because whatever will ever exist, will always exist within The Whole. This is as per the definition of The Whole. So by definition, The Whole will always be spaceless and timeless. So, as per the definition, nothing can exist outside The Whole, because if anything at all exists outside it, then it will no longer remain The Whole.

So far, we have only given the definition of The Whole, but we have not stated anything about whether it exists or not. Let us now suppose that it exists as well. If it exists, then the most relevant question that can be asked will be this: Is it caused or is it uncaused? If it is caused, then who, or what has caused its existence? If it is caused then where lies that cause? If we say that this cause lies outside The Whole, then it will no longer remain The Whole. So, for The Whole to always remain The Whole, its cause must also lie within itself. For The Whole to always remain The Whole, it must be self-caused, uncaused.

So, the definition of The Wole itself gives us the reason why it must be uncaused.

We will arrive at the same conclusion if we now consider the infinite regress problem. In the article ‘Existence of anything ultimately points to God’1 I have already shown that if anything exists at all, that even if a single speck of dust exists, then ultimately there will have to be something spaceless and timeless in nature, as otherwise there will be an infinite regress. We will call this spaceless and timeless entity that stops the infinite regress The Ultimate Reality or The First Cause.

Now the question is: Is this First Cause caused? Or, is it uncaused? If we say that it is caused and that its cause lies outside it, then we will be again introducing the same infinite regress that we are striving so hard to stop. So, if we want to genuinely stop the infinite regress forever, then just like The Whole, this First Cause, or this Ultimate Reality, must also have to be self-caused, uncaused.

Reference:
1. https://www.scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/498/536

Let us play a game.

Let us suppose that there is a creator of this universe. If this creator is to keep proof of his existence in the created world in such a way that it can be easily recognized as proof of a creator, then which proof will he keep?

Anybody can play this game, theists and atheists alike, because it starts with a supposition only.

Here is a hint for those who will take part in this game: A creator as a creator may have some particular properties which no one else, nothing else created by him may have, simply because they have been created and because they are not the creator. If we now find these particular properties of a creator in something created, then we will immediately understand that these are from the creator only because no created thing can naturally have those properties.

Here is one more hint: When we say about something that it is spaceless and timeless, what we mean to say about it is that it is not within any space and time. But, whatever is there in the universe, is within the space and time of the universe. Being within the space and time of the universe, can anything naturally be spaceless and timeless?

Here is one more: If there is indeed a creator of this universe, then it can be said that this creator has brought everyone and everything within the universe into existence. Whatever has been brought into existence by the creator has been given certain lifetime. Many stars in the sky have a lifetime of several billion years; we human beings have a lifetime of a few decades; some insects have a lifetime of a single day only. Can we think of anything that has also been brought into existence by the creator, but that has been given no lifetime?

When anybody playing this game will be able to correctly pinpoint those particular properties that only a creator is privileged to have, this game will be over.

Because then she will come to know that there is a God.

Proving the existence of God is so easy, yet so difficult.

So far as I can remember, there are these two equations in Einstein’s special theory of relativity:
l1 = l(1-v2/c2)1/2……. (1)
t1 = t((1-v2/c2)1/2……. (2)

From the above two equations, two conclusions can be drawn that are as follows:
1) Time and distance are not absolute, they are relative;
2) At light speed, both travel time and travel distance become zero.

Now reality may be such that
1) Time and distance are only relative, but in no circumstances they become zero (A);
2) Time and distance are not only relative but at one particular case, they also become zero (B).

If reality is A, then the above two equations are not required at all to represent that reality; it can be equally represented by the following two equations:
l1 = l(1-v2/xc2)1/2……. (3)
t1 = t((1-v2/xc2)1/2……. (4)

In (3) and (4) above, x will have a value greater than one but less than infinity. But it cannot have a value equal to one or infinity. If the value of x is one, then we will go back to Einstein’s equations, whereas if its value equals infinity, then we will have Newton’s equations instead. From (3) and (4) above, it can clearly be seen that time and distance will be relative as before, but they will never be zero even at the speed of light due to the presence of the factor 1/x in the equations.

Now, I know very well that it is not possible to experimentally demonstrate what is actually happening at the speed of light and so, it is reasonable to doubt whether time and distance really shrink to zero at light-speed. However, there is an alternate way to verify it.

Suppose scientists have repeated the Michelson-Morley experiment or any newer version of it, and suppose that they have arrived at equations (3) and (4) instead of equations (1) and (2). Then, based on these two equations (3) and (4), they can say that the shrinkage of time and distance to zero at light-speed is only a myth.

But, nature knows better than any one of us what is actually happening at the speed of light and so, whenever an actual experiment is performed with light and an interferometer, it is always returning us equations (1) and (2) only and not equations (3) and (4) even for a single time. This is nature’s indirect way to inform us that we are not doing any mistake when we are saying that time and distance become zero for light.

Scientists usually do not question this and so, we can find such statements in their writings on SR:
1) ‘For the light itself, the whole universe is only zero millimeters long.’ – Sascha Vongehr, in The Fundamental Nature of Light, Science 2.0 (February 3rd, 2011);
2) ‘At the speed of light there’s no time to cover any distance, but there’s also no distance to cover.’ – Ask a Mathematician/Ask a Physicist

There is a reason as to why scientists do not question this. The reason is that they know very well that they are in the domain of physics, and not in the domain of metaphysics. In the domain of physics, if they want to challenge something, then they cannot do so by using logic and reason only. Rather, they will have to experimentally demonstrate that that particular thing is wrong; they will have to experimentally demonstrate that equations (1) and (2) must be replaced by equations (3) and (4). So far, no one has been able to do this. So far, no one has been able to falsify SR.

There is one more reason why we can say that time and distance indeed shrink to zero at light-speed. Main-stream physicists are now saying that spacetime is not fundamental, but emergent. Spacetime is emergent means the source from which spacetime has emerged cannot be within any spacetime, for the simple reason that there cannot be any spacetime prior to its emergence. So, by stating that spacetime is emergent, physicists have already acknowledged the existence of something spaceless and timeless in nature from which our known spacetime has emerged. I know that physicists are describing this source as non-spatiotemporal, but I also know this that ‘non-spatiotemporal’ is only a new scientific term that replaces our old term ‘spaceless and timeless.’ If there is something spaceless and timeless in nature, then it is quite obvious that science would show how anything can be spaceless and timeless, because it is the job of science to provide an explanation for every phenomenon, event and effect in nature. In SR, we get those requisite explanations for spacelessness and timelessness. So, although we cannot directly verify whether time and distance really shrink to zero at light-speed, yet we can say that emergent spacetime is an indirect validation of it.

Part I

Two reasons can be given as to why an entity may be spaceless and timeless:

1) Reason A: If the entity is not within any space and time, then it will naturally be spaceless and timeless. We can also say that it will be spaceless and timeless by default;

2) Reason B: If the entity is placed within some space and time, and if it is forcefully deprived of space and time, then also it will become spaceless and timeless.

For 1), we can give the example of the entity from which our known spacetime has emerged. In this 21st century, physicists are no more saying that spacetime is fundamental; rather, they are saying it is emergent. Spacetime is emergent means the source from which spacetime has emerged cannot be within any spacetime, for the simple reason that there cannot be any spacetime prior to its emergence. So, not being within any spacetime, it will naturally be spaceless and timeless. However, physicists are describing it not as spaceless and timeless, but as non-spatiotemporal. Whatever may be the nomenclature, the concept remains the same in both cases; the source from which spacetime has emerged is not within any spacetime and so, it is naturally non-spatiotemporal/spaceless and timeless.

For 2), we can give the example of black hole singularities. Earlier, it was known to us that black hole singularities were point-like. Now it has been known that they are not point-like but rather one dimensional ring-like. In case of black hole singularities, whether they are point-like or ring-like, space and time almost contract to zero due to a tremendous gravitational force.

Now suppose there is one more entity within the universe that is also spaceless and timeless, but for which neither Reason A nor Reason B can be thought of as its cause. Here I am speaking about light. Light is within the universe, but as per SR both the travel distance and the travel time become zero for light. So, within the space and time of the universe, light occupies zero space for zero time, which is tantamount to saying that light is spaceless and timeless.

Can we say that light is spaceless and timeless due to Reason A? No, we cannot say so, because we know very well that light is within the space and time of the universe.

Can we say that light is spaceless and timeless due to Reason B? No, we cannot say so, because we are not aware of any force that is active in case of light causing space and time contract to zero for light.

If light is spaceless and timeless neither due to Reason A, nor due to Reason B, then what is the reason due to which it is so?

Moreover, no black hole is as big as the universe. So, the length that is almost contracted to zero in case of black hole singularities is nothing compared to the entire width of the universe. But for light, the entire width of the universe is contracted to zero. If a tremendous gravitational force is responsible for the contraction of a black hole’s size of length almost to zero, then which force is responsible for the contraction of the entire width of the universe to zero, in case of light?

Does anyone have a clue about it? Can anybody say what the cause is due to which light is spaceless and timeless?

Part II

I have already stated that we do not know the reason due to which light is spaceless and timeless. But, whatever may be the reason of this, it can be shown that this reason cannot lie within the space and time of the universe.

Let us suppose that X is that reason and that X is within the universe. If X is not spaceless and timeless itself, then it is not possible for it to make another entity spaceless and timeless. So, X must have to be spaceless and timeless first, and then only it can make another entity spaceless and timeless. But, if X is also spaceless and timeless, then we will have to ask the same question about X that we were earlier asking about light: Being already placed within the space and time of the universe, how has it become spaceless and timeless? So, now we will have to search for the cause due to which X has become spaceless and timeless. Therefore, from this we can conclude that the cause due to which light is spaceless and timeless cannot lie within the space and time of the universe. It must lie outside any space and time.

The only entity that we know of that lies outside any space and time is the source from which our known spacetime has emerged. The existence of this entity in nature has already been confirmed once physicists have declared that spacetime is emergent. So, here is one entity that is spaceless and timeless by default, and for which we need not have to seek any further cause due to which it has become spaceless and timeless, because we already know that it is not within any space and time.

Now, if scientists can somehow show that this lifeless, mindless, and unconscious entity but that happens to be spaceless and timeless simply by default, can NATURALLY make another entity (aka light) spaceless and timeless, then this universe WILL NEVER NEED ANY GOD.

However, if they fail to do so, then only we will be compelled to posit some sort of consciousness here, because it is possible for a conscious being only to know how it is spaceless and timeless.

Science is the ultimate arbiter of truth and so, let science show that there is a natural explanation here.

We will be waiting for that explanation.

God is not purely imaginary, because God has also been described as spaceless and timeless.

In this 21st century, physicists are no longer saying that spacetime is fundamental; rather, they are saying that it is emergent.

If an entity is emergent, then in general, that will mean these three things:
1) The emergent entity cannot have any existence prior to its emergence.
2) The emergent entity (A) cannot emerge from just anything or nothing; it can emerge from some particular entity or entities (B) only.
3) B must pre-exist before the emergence of A.

The above three will also be true for emergent spacetime as well.

Spacetime is emergent means the source from which spacetime has emerged cannot be within any spacetime, for the simple reason that there cannot be any spacetime prior to its emergence. Physicists are describing this source as non-spatiotemporal.

'Non-spatiotemporal' is the new scientific term for the old term 'spaceless and timeless'. The special theory of relativity has combined the two separate entities space and time into one single entity: spacetime. So, scientists can no longer use the old term ‘spaceless and timeless’; instead, they use the new term ‘non-spatiotemporal’.

So, emergent spacetime has shown that there is something spaceless and timeless (aka, non-spatiotemporal) in nature from which our known spacetime has emerged.

This is the objectively real part in man's imagination of God.

As we have come to know that spacetime is not fundamental but emergent, so some questions arise here that are given below:

1) Was spacetime fundamental or emergent when the universe began to expand from the Big Bang?
2) If it was fundamental, then is there any scientific evidence in support of it? If yes, then how did scientists get that evidence? And also, from where did they get that evidence?
3) If it was fundamental, then how and when has it become emergent by losing its fundamental nature?
4) However, if it was emergent, then would it not require the prior presence of NSE from which only it could emerge?

Moreover, if an entity is emergent, then how can it be the case that it was fundamental at an earlier time, and that it has become emergent afterwards by losing its fundamental nature? Would it not be more reasonable to assume that if it is emergent now, then earlier also it was emergent, and that it will remain so in future as well?

One can easily understand what will be the implication of this. Spacetime being emergent, would require the prior presence of this NSE for its emergence from it, when the universe began expanding from the Big Bang.

In the CCC model of Roger Penrose, this NSE would have to be eternal and everlasting, because every time a big bang has occurred or will occur, whether in the infinite past, or in the far distant future, spacetime would have required, or would require, the prior presence of this NSE for its emergence from it.

If it were possible for a human being to be simultaneously present at both New York and London, then the distance between these two cities would be zero for that human being. But, for all the other human beings, this distance would remain the same as before.

If it were possible for someone to be simultaneously present at every point of the universe, then the distance from one end of the universe to its other end would be zero for that being, because this being would be simultaneously present at both ends. Similarly, the time taken to travel from one end of the universe to its other end would also be zero for that being.

Here, we can say that the properties of the light show as if someone is simultaneously present at every point of the universe. This requires some detailed explanation.

For the light itself, this universe is zero millimeters long. Both the travel time and the travel distance become zero for light. Now, if we suppose that someone is simultaneously present at every point of the universe, then the universe will also be zero millimeters long for that being, because it will be simultaneously present at both ends of the universe. Both the travel time and the travel distance will also become zero for that being, because it will be simultaneously present at every point of the universe. That is the reason why it can be said that the properties of light show as if someone is simultaneously present at every point of the universe.

Experiments on quantum entanglement also show the same thing. If we arbitrarily choose any two points from the vast space of the universe, then the experiments on quantum entanglement will always show that the distance between these two points is zero, because the connection between two entangled particles located at these two points will always take place simultaneously. Here also, we can use the same analogy. If someone is simultaneously present at every point of the universe, then for it also the distance between any two points arbitrarily chosen will be zero. So, both the properties of light and the experimental results of entanglement show as if someone is simultaneously present at every point of the universe, because in the second case also we will be getting the same properties as those that we get in the first case of light and entangled particles.

However, physicists may not accept our suggestion that as if someone is simultaneously present at every point of the universe. So, here is one more suggestion.

The universe consists of only one single basic particle P and this P is simultaneously present at every point of the universe. From this picture of the universe, we can now recover all those properties of light and the properties of the entangled particles. And we will find that this description of the universe makes quite a good sense.

My justification for writing this post is that only emergent spacetime can ultimately lead to God. So, we must defend it in every possible way.

Recently, I have posted the following in one Facebook Discussion Group:

'Physicists are now saying that spacetime is not fundamental but emergent, and it has emerged from something non-spatiotemporal.

‘As we have come to know that spacetime is emergent, so some questions arise here that I am giving below:

1) Was spacetime fundamental or emergent when the universe began to expand from the Big Bang?
2) If it was fundamental, then is there any scientific evidence in support of it?
3) If it was fundamental, how and when has it become emergent by losing its fundamental nature?
4) However, if it was emergent, would it not require the prior presence of something non-spatiotemporal from which only it could emerge?’

In reply, a person commented that we have not come to know that. It is only a possibility that only a few theoreticians are investigating. These theoreticians have yet to extend it from 3D to 4D that is essential, and until they do, they cannot even start for the possible observation that might verify the speculation.

But I think there is a reason why those physicists may not be entirely wrong who say that spacetime is emergent.

In an earlier article1, I have shown that if anything exists at all, there would be something spaceless and timeless. That is because otherwise, there will be an infinite regress. Below, I am going to repeat the same article here, but with some modification.

We can show by some simple logic that if anything exists at all, then either there will be an infinite regress or that there will be something spaceless and timeless that will stop that regress.

Now let us start from the earth. Earth exists within the solar system.
The solar system exists within the Milky Way galaxy.
The Milky Way galaxy exists within the local cluster of galaxies.
This cluster again exists within some super-cluster of galaxies.
This super-cluster of galaxies exists within the universe that contains trillions of other galaxies.

WHAT I AM GOING TO SAY NOW IS PURELY FOR THE SAKE OF BUILDING AN ARGUMENT ONLY. NOTHING IS ASSERTED HERE.

The universe exists within the multiverse that contains trillions of other universes.
This multiverse exists within some super-multiverse that contains trillions of other multiverses.
This super-multiverse exists within some super-duper multiverse that contains trillions of other super-multiverses.
This super-duper multiverse exists within some supra-multiverse that contains trillions of other super-duper multiverses.
This supra-multiverse exists within some supra-dupra multiverse that contains trillions of other supra-multiverses.
And in this way, this chain will go on up to infinity.

However, if we want to stop the infinite regress, we would have to break the chain somewhere in the middle. We would have to stop at some level.

If we decide that we would stop at the universe level, we would have to say that nothing is there beyond the universe. The universe as a whole would be neither in any space nor in any time. That is because there would be nothing outside the universe.

If we stop at the multiverse level, we would have to say that the multiverse as a whole would be neither in any space nor at any time. That is because there would be nothing outside the multiverse.

In each case, the entity being as a whole neither in space nor in time would be spaceless and timeless.

So, the entity that will stop the infinite regress will always be spaceless and timeless.

From above, we can conclude that if anything exists at all, then there would be two possibilities:
1) Possibility one: There would be an infinite regress;
2) Possibility two: There would be something spaceless and timeless that will stop that regress;

I do not profess to know whether there is an infinite regress or no such regress. NOBODY KNOWS. However, if there is no such regress, then we can say that there was something spaceless and timeless at the beginning from which everything has originated. In that case, we cannot say that those physicists are wrong who are saying spacetime is emergent.

Reference:
1) https://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/498/536

Physicists have shown that the total energy of the universe is zero. Based on this, and with the help of the two theories of relativity, we can show that the universe is spaceless, timeless, and immaterial.

SR has shown that matter and energy are equivalent. If the total energy of the universe is zero, its material content will also be zero. If its material content is zero, then we can say that the universe as a whole is immaterial.

We human beings are not immaterial because the total material content of our physical body is not zero. But the universe is not material. That is because its material content is zero.

Again GR has shown that space, time, and matter are so interlinked that there cannot be any space and time without matter; similarly, there cannot be any matter without space and time. If its material content is zero, its total spacetime will also be zero.

What does it mean that the total spacetime of the universe is zero? It means that the universe as a whole is spaceless and timeless.

We have already seen that the universe as a whole is immaterial. Now we have seen that it is also spaceless and timeless. So, we can say that the universe as a whole is spaceless, timeless, and immaterial.

If the total energy of the universe is zero, then that will mean it was always zero in the past, it is zero at present, and it will always remain zero in the future. That is because we can neither create nor destroy energy.

Therefore the universe as a whole was always spaceless, timeless, and immaterial in the past. It is the same at present and will always remain the same in the future.

That means the universe as a whole does not change at all.

That nicely explains why the wave function of the universe does not contain any time variable.

In one YouTube comment thread, a person wrote the following:

He had watched a documentary on animals and sea life. He was watching how vicious nature could be. Sharks were killing seals, and alligators were killing zebras that crossed the river, lions were killing their prey, and on and on. After seeing all these, he started thinking about whether God was also like this. If we look at nature, we will see things appear calm on the one hand, and on another, things look so chaotic. Was it that God also meant for everything to be as it was? People will be killing other people, and then there will be all the crime, sickness, poverty, starvation, suffering, etc.? If one thinks about it, it all happens in nature, and we humans are all part of nature. So, if this is God's nature as well, then we are all doomed!

The following was my reply to him:

There is an easy explanation for that. It was God’s method of family planning and birth control.

Think of a situation when there were only herbivores on this planet and no carnivores to keep their numbers in check and balance. What would have happened after millions and millions of years? All these herbivores would have gone extinct due to an extreme food shortage; the earth would also have turned into a desert. In that situation, no new species could appear on earth.

But God created this universe to bring someone in it with whom he would be able to communicate. So, to preserve the greens on earth, God had to adopt this cruel method. That is because man had not yet appeared on the scene at that period that could use their intelligence to invent an effective means of birth control for these herbivorous animals.

Once man has appeared on earth, now all these carnivorous animals can go extinct. There is no need for any wildlife conservation for these carnivores.

Mystics who have claimed that they have a direct vision of God
have always described that God as spaceless and timeless. But mystical experiences have been discarded by secular-minded people as merely a hallucination.

Here is a Medical Definition of Hallucination: A profound distortion in a person's perception of reality, typically accompanied by a powerful sense of reality. A hallucination may be a sensory experience in which a person can see, hear, smell, taste, or feel something that is not there.

That means a person having a hallucinatory experience cannot have any knowledge about reality.

Physicists in this 21st century are saying that spacetime is emergent. For example, theoretical physicist Sean Carroll who once wrote an article showing that God is not a good theory has recently published a book whose title is this: Something deeply hidden: quantum worlds and the emergence of spacetime.

Spacetime is emergent means there is something more fundamental than spacetime from which spacetime has emerged. This something more fundamental than spacetime cannot be within any spacetime. That is because there cannot be any spacetime before its emergence. As it cannot be within any spacetime, so it will be spaceless and timeless. However, physicists describe this as non-spatiotemporal, a new scientific term that replaces old spaceless and timeless. Space and time were two different entities in the pre-relativistic era. In the post-relativistic one, they have become one single entity: spacetime. So physicists can no longer use the old term spaceless and timeless; instead, they use the new term non-spatiotemporal.

That means physicists are now saying that there is something spaceless and timeless from which our known spacetime has emerged.

Now, my question is: If mystics had seen only a hallucination, then how did they come to know that there was something spaceless and timeless long before physicists had come to know that? That is because, as per definition, a hallucination cannot give any knowledge about reality.

Now, we all know that spacetime is not fundamental, because physicists are saying so. But, do we know the reason why spacetime cannot be fundamental?

This is a physics question as well as a philosophy question.

If we say that X is a fundamental ingredient of the universe, then we will have to admit that whatever will exist in it, will need X for its existence. Nothing can exist without it.

However, if there is something in the universe that does not need X for its existence, then X cannot be called a fundamental ingredient of the universe.

Now, we want to know why spacetime is not fundamental. So, we will ask this question now: Is spacetime a fundamental ingredient of the universe? And we will try to find out an answer to this question.

Our task is very simple here. We will ask just one more question here: Is there anything in the universe that does not need spacetime for its existence?

If the answer is yes, then we know for sure that spacetime is not a fundamental ingredient of the universe.

And the answer is yes here, because there is at least one entity in the universe that does not need any spacetime for its existence. That entity is light. Einstein’s special theory of relativity has shown that a photon occupies zero space for zero time because both the travel time and the travel distance become zero for light.

It is also true that we cannot do anything without light; light is so much essential for us. And the irony is that this most essential entity for us does not need any spacetime for its existence. It can do without it.

So, how can we say that spacetime is a fundamental ingredient of the universe? How can we say that it is fundamental?