Yes, it forgoes causality. Which is all that I am defending in terms of the illogic of something from nothing. It doesn’t matter to me if particles originate from vacuum energy as long as they do not originate from nothing. I don’t care about classical physics.
Consequently there must be hidden variables that are currently unknown to account for the appearance of random activity observed at the quantum level.
The only problem is Bell’s-Aspect experiment an actual real experiment says that no local hidden variable theory can explain the experimental evidence of quantum mechanics. So any attempt to do so in those terms has basically been dismissed by the method.
Bells theorem was a challenge to the EPR (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen 3 very heavy hitters) paper, which said that either quantum mechanics is wrong or it is missing something huge. Bell invented a clever thought experiment about entanglement, or spooky action at a distant as Einstein called it, and such experiments are always being done to refine the process, they always produce the same resulting evidence where only probability models reflect the outcomes of experiment.
A conference at Solvey where Einstein, Schrödinger and Leplace, the champions of classical mechanics were in attendance but did not walk away with the consensus and the quantum revolution has been dominated by it ever since. Bohr, Pauli, Heisenburg, Dirac amongst other giants basically had a nerd off and won. 
“My only regret is I will not be alive to witness the demise of quantum mechanics.”
Erwin Schrödinger.
It’s not widely known but Schrödinger’s cat was actually a wry joke about quantum interpretation. Something he and many other physicists just couldn’t agree to.
The point is if all the science is saying classical and deterministic models do not explain physics, then you are saying that classical physics rules because you disagree that the universe can operate on probabilistic terms ie not a clockwork orange whether you realise it or not.
The vacuum is about as close to nothing as it gets. So you are right something comes from something, but how is the question?
If you really want to get down to the real brass tacks, there is never any actual attracting going on. The appearance of attraction is an aberrant effect involving migration and aggregation. The end effect is the same as if there was an actual attractive force involved.
James you say that, but why? You know I am not against your ideas, and yet whenever I get a conversation out of you, all I get is that I am unable to understand your points. So…
I do love talking about brass tacks, and you as a supposed expert could explain them. But every time I ask you just insult me, claim I couldn’t possibly understand and insult me and then insult me, and then claim I have no ability to understand. It’s getting boring. If your theory is so right, then you damn well should start explaining it, if not to me to someone.
Seriously you know that I can understand at least calculus, basic trigonometry, any matrix or tensor explanations, PDFs non PDF equations. So explain it! Hell at least stop making out that I am an idiot, because you are the all knowing light of physics, explain it. You may be surprised by what I do or don’t know.
But why?
If there’s no attraction and no differential and general relativity is just wrong why should any matter attract? If there is such a thing why does gravity have no opposite, repulsion. Why? Why do you insist that Einstein is just wrong about gravity without an explanation for it? What do you propose replaces the principles of GR, in what way does it work, and why?
Calrid, you over exaggerate what people say and even to whom they might be speaking. Such leads you to often assume that writers (and scientists) have stated something when what you grasped from it was not exactly what they meant. The issue is one of calming down and then trying to see if someone really meant what you first thought. Some of that is in reference to other threads. In this thread, I, in no way" called you an idiot (nor in any other). I did give up on debating with you when you couldn’t even state what it was that I was supposed to disprove for your sake (the QM thread).
I have not given details concerning my privately proven understanding of particle physics for a variety of reasons, none of which have to do with wanting to boast (obviously it is pointless to boast if you can’t back it up eventually) or thinking that people are just too stupid. Being too stupid or merely having too little education does in fact make any effort to explain anything far more difficult and at times, really not worth the effort.
So merely as an offer of thought, I will state something without any deeper explanation just to provide the thought for consideration, not expecting everyone to just take my word. But it gives them a chance to see that there actually is a different perspective that MIGHT have some sense to it.
Now as far as gravity;
Gravity functions by the aggregation of those “affectance waves” that I mentioned in that other thread. Every particle absorbs those waves and also releases them. The particle is stable and maintained when its dissemination and aggregation are equal. Due to the structure of a particle they will always be equal although it is quite possible that the appearance of the expanding universe is due to literally every particle slightly disseminating more than accruing (a different thread topic).
Every particle gains affectance from the dissemination coming from other particles. As it does this, it “grows” in the direction of the other particles while disseminating more from its opposite direction, thus yielding no total growth. The particle “moves” in the direction of the greatest aggregating effect and thus gives the appearance of being attracted.
There is far more to the entire story, but I thought I would at least introduce that thought to you (as it really has been proven to the last detail, although you cannot see the proof as that would require your observation of things to which you have no access).
Well JS, at least you have talked to me, it is the first time.