I am truly shocked.
1 Like
So what? You are the one making something out of nothing.
Hey… that’s funny, Roger! Making “something” out of “nothing” !!!
Let me know when you have finished your cosmology reading…
Perhaps this helps illuminate what George is referring to (note: my personal analysis, he is not truly as dense as you imagine):
Again, I do hope that we can appreciate the significance of quantum mechanics in this part of the discussion where the equations of General Relativity do not work very well on small scales (of which the universe certainly was) and the equations of General Relativity also fail to describe things like virtual particles (of which occur on very small scales–see the video that simulates a box that is 10^-15 meters in its dimensions).
1 Like
@pevaquark Matthew, thank you for coming to the defense of @gbrooks9 George, although if I remember correctly he came into the conversation on your side of the discussion.
I think I understand better what the course of the problem is. The question under discussion is the Big Bang, the beginning of the universe. George (and may be you and it appears Lewis Kraus) want to change the subject to today’s world and quantum space.
These are two very different situations whi8ch have almost nothing in common. I am afraid that the sparkling generalities that you offer do not mean anything. Just because quantum physics is important in today’s world does not mean that it was central to the Big Bang and some theoretical problems between the General Relativity and quantum physics mean that the universe did not emerge out of nothing.
As I demonstrated to George the information that he shared from the internet clearly indicates that before the Big Bang there was absolute Nothing, which means no matter, no energy, no time, no space, no quantum physics. There was nothing that the interesting video that you provided talks about.
The video is absolutely right. Empty space is not empty. George agreed with me, Empty space is not Nothing. Space is not Nothing and Time is not Nothing as Einstein said If that be the case then why does @gbrooks9 and others keep arguing that empty space (or quantum physics) has something to do with the Big Bang which started at Absolute Zero matter, energy, time, and space, that is the Beginning of everything from all the observable evidence that we have.
P. S. The video begins by saying that atoms is almost entirely composed of space. This is not new and it is the reason that I with others have said that the universe could be so small at the Beginning, because there was no space between the most basic particles. The initial stage of the universe was all or almost all mass and little or no energy, which would have given it form or space.
I don’t think you do understand what the problem is. And this is not a matter of what George thinks or myself, or Lawrence Krauss… but this is a fact. Quantum effects would be very very important in the earliest seconds of the universe. How do we know this? Let me ask you Roger, do you know why there are very small anisotropies ingrained on the Cosmic Microwave Background? Where did those come from? The colors represent very small differences in temperature/the clumping of matter, less than one part in ten thousand.
Wrong.
However, I will grant you this statement:
But not this one:
If that’s what George shared then he’s wrong. However if that’s your interpretation of Big Bang Cosmology then you are wrong.
I posted the video for the sake of demonstrating virtual particles. The quantum world does some very very non-classical things and the quantum world demonstrably was very important in the early universe (more on this to come).
1 Like
Are you saying that quarks are virtual?
The quantum world is different, but we do not live in the quantum world nor an empty space world.
I am looking forward to additional information, but I am taking Memorial Day week end off. Have a good holiday.
beautiful stuff. My undergrad degree is in biology with evolutionary capstone, but went on to medicine only–there’s so much to appreciate in your field. Thanks for the teaching.
Did you ever get the confirmation to your satisfaction?.. that the answer to the thread title is “No!”?
Sometimes to get specific responses, a quote of the original assertion is a giant help.
But I think we can safely put this one aside, yes?
2 Likes
As I have said before. The micro world of quantum physics is the world of the “strong force.” not the world of the “weak force” or gravity and General Relativity. The problem as I see it is that science knows precious little about the strong force. The question is not one of knowledge, but of ignorance. God is God of the Facts, not God of the Gaps. An argument from ignorance does not work.
I know of no evidence that the universe is composed of virtual particles.
First of all, welcome back to the thread! I hope you had a lovely holiday. Let’s get into this a bit and I hope that you will see where I’m coming from as it appears we haven’t quite been speaking the same language (so to speak) so far.
I think I know what you’re trying to say, but the language is a bit incorrect.
There are four fundamental forces: the strong force, the weak force, the electromagnetic force, and the gravitational force. Comparatively, the strong force, the weak force, and the electromagnetic force are all incredibly “strong” compared to gravity. In a process that impacts human beings a decent amount radiometric decay consists of a combination of all of the three “strong” forces as you referred to them (did you mean to lump all three forces into the “strong/not gravity” category?).
Radiometric Decay Process
- A nuclei is stable with a certain number of protons and neutrons. There is an electrostatic repulsion between protons that would tear the nucleus apart… but thankfully is a strong force that keeps the nucleus stable and holds it together.
- Let’s say in the case of alpha decay two neutrons and two protons want to stick together and get out of the nucleus. But they can’t! The strong force is far too strong to let anyone go. However, the strong force, which we know a lot about, decays very quickly at distances beyond that of the standard nuclei. Remarkably, we know very well that particles can be understood as waves… that can tunnel through barriers. This is a purely quantum phenomenon yet one can easily calculate the tunneling probability and half life utilizing the Schroedinger Equation.
Again are you accidentally lumping the strong force, weak force, and electromagnetic force (i.e. everything that isn’t gravity) into one? Regardless, we know quite a bit a about the real strong force. Here’s one such wikipedia article:
Indeed. Let’s resume this thread once you’ve read up on all the fundamental forces of Physics and Quantum Mechanics?
I think you do not quite understand them just yet. Virtual particles are really important in all these processes:
My holiday weekend was beautiful, thank you.
When I was talking about the strong force, I was speaking about it in the same way you are speaking here, one of the fundamental forces.
It seems to me that we talk about quantum physics, but we do not discuss what part the strong (nuclear) force plays in quantum physics. Yes, we know basically what it does, but not how it does it and how it relates to quantum physics.
I do not agree. First of all I have gathered without reading deeply that some people have developed the theory that quantum physics maintains that the universe is composed of virtual particles. This was my concern when I raised this question. We know that some people are apt in using every new discovery of science, be it quantum physics or virtual particles, etc., to justify some far out understanding of reality like virtual reality. That is what I was trying to find out what you were referring to.
Now in researching virtual particles I find that they are aspects of what we once called energy, as opposed to particles. This model of reality seems to be based on a particle model, rather than a particles and energy model. I am more accustomed to the later. I certainly would not say that the particle model is invalid, but would say that models have limits, and usually one model is not sufficient to understand all situations.
Of course E = mc squared brings mass and energy into relationship. It would be strange is science concluded that it is invalid because science has determined that energy and mass are all particles or that the equation does not work in the micro world of quantum physics.
Of course all aspects of reality are important, I do not see that virtual particles are “really” important when compared to real particles and when already taken into account as energy.
“Virtual interactions are characterized by the relatively short range of the force interaction produced by particle exchange. Examples of such short-range interactions are the strong and weak forces, and their associated field bosons.” from the Wiki article @pevaquark cited.
Finally in my research I found that part of quantum theory is the concept that it provides for “free will” in nature which surely is a misunderstanding of the facts. This is part of what I mean when I say that science really do not quantum physics.
Please do not evade the question of Creation ex nihilo.
Really? You must have knowledge that is far superior to the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2004. Quantum chromodynamics (or QCD) is the quantum theory that lies behind the strong force. So I’ll go with a 100% wrong here.
Gotcha. I will wait for your papers published on say the lamb shift and every other phenomenon without virtual particles:
Here is a neat explanation of the range of these forces based upon the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (which in a sense ‘violates’ the conservation of energy but is restricted by it):
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/exchg.html#c2
I don’t, and neither do cosmologists. The main conclusion I think is that if you ignore the quantum world (or misunderstand it) then you can find a more ‘ex nihilo’ type of conclusion. However… you can’t ignore it and quantum effects were very important. You have many different quantum interactions between particles in the early universe like QCD that was mentioned before as the universe would have been a quark gluon plasma. Big Bang Nucleosynthesis is something that has been experimentally confirmed and is based upon the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces. But let’s look even before this point where remember earlier how I said:
You didn’t quite answer that question which is okay but we should talk about it now. If you want to read a textbook on the matter, you can find one here. Chapter 8 should do. Poking around Wikipedia can get a simpler sense of how such primordial fluctuations were produced (i.e. thanks to quantum effects) and how they later became the anisotropies of the CMB.
All in all, there is nothing in science that confirms any ex nihilo creation. Maybe it will someday, and from a purely non-quantum view- General Relativity suggests this, but as I’ve been trying to demonstrate- quantum effects are extremely important in the early universe and still are today.
2 Likes
I really like the beautiful art work you posted above – all those curvy and wavy lines with letters sprinkled in, and in various colors too! I could just stare at that for a while. The title of the piece being … Lamb Shift ! I’ll have to contemplate that too. 
Since my high school physics teacher knowledge base doesn’t reach nearly so far as this (or Roger’s Nobel status, apparently), I just have a more general background question.
Sophisticated and edgy QM knowledge aside (which I know – violates the very point I think you are emphasizing to Roger – you can’t just set this aside) isn’t there still a general sense that time / space / matter are probably not eternal? I.e. even if time is a created thing, removing words like “before” or “after” from how we should conceive of big bang origins, isn’t there still a valid sense that a material “nothingness” could conceptually exist, and that as such it would “precede” (can’t seem to avoid those time words!) the material (meaning not just matter but all space and laws governing such)?
Or maybe to put this another way. Let’s say Aristotle & Co. were right all along and that matter was eternal. That still would not give adequate answer to the question of “so where does that eternity come from”, would it?
[added below]
I know – that’s all incoherent above, and comes from me (us?) trying to peek where we can’t peek. Maybe it is all to suggest that while theology is about our world and all the places we can peek, it is also, by definition, preceding matter, preceding the big bang, preceding all QM used to help explain the big bang … and so forth. Eventually, in the philosophical sense, we still end up with an “ex-nihilo” (so far as our perspective could be concerned on the theological side) do we not?
1 Like
Does time exist/makes sense at the quantum level? What confuses me a little bit about these ideas of the world poping out of quantum fluctuations is mainly why that happened ~14 billion years ago and not “sooner” if the quantum world was eternal and without a beggining, do these theorys have an answer for that?
@Mervin_Bitikofer, thank you for your comment. @pevaquark, For me it is important to try to reconcile, bring together the three basic disciplines of humankind, science, philosophy, and theology.
I mean with all the confusion in this world it would be great if scholars in these basic fields could get together. Of course just because something is good, does not mean that it is right. However it is not good for science or for anyone if it becomes an island and authority unto itself.
The Beginning is where science, philosophy, and theology come together. All three did agree that there was a Beginning, but science seems to be saying that there was no Beginning. That is some are saying in effect that quantum reality is eternal.
The point I was trying to make with @gbrooks9 was that the Big Bang Theory indicates that there was a Beginning, which seems to mean that unless science comes up with evidence that proves that false, then the universe emerged out of Nothing. Krauss says that the universe emerged out of quantum fields, which is not Nothing. Your presentation as far as I can see has not indicated that the quantum world are eternal and E = mc squared is false, so as far as I am concerned I won the argument.
Why are you making a false dichotomy between quantum physics and “classical physics” and including relativity with classical physics, when is about the same age as quantum physics. Bohr disagreed with Heisenberg in that he saw quantum physics as a combination to two models, wave or energy and particle or mass. I think that my approach is closed to Bohr and I have no disrespect to those who support virtual particles, even though I maybe not up to date with their findings, which I why I am discussing this on the web.
There are two aspects of science. One is the data that science is based on and the second is the theory that explains the theory. I am sure that you have seen the timeline charts that depict the Big Bang. They depict the first second of time of the universe. Assuming these charts accurately depict the best scientific data available, then they indicate that the universe had a beginning in Time and thus was created out of Nothing. Honestly I do not expect a scientist to agree with a theological statement, but there it is.
No one is saying that quantum effects are not important. The uniove4rswe would not be the universe without the quantum world. I still do not know why you oppose quantum with Relativity, since it is all science and all true. If “General Relativity suggests” that the universe is created out of Nothing, there must be some scientific evidence to support this, which is more than anyone else was willing to say. Thank you for your honesty.
The answer is no. In fact it would seem that the question is inappropriate because the quantum world cannot think and does not act with purpose. This is why it is absurd to think that a quantum produced world is rational, and/or has meaning and purpose.
I’m not sure what to say about matter other than than most cosmological models end with ‘heat death/big freeze’- but that has a lot of unknowns in it… like do protons decay? We have a lower bound on that of about 10^40 seconds. So that speaks to the future of the eternal nature of matter. Going back in time… your guess is as good as mine, I’d say! I do think though that the question doesn’t quite make sense anymore like it used to. I mean that in the sense of like a rock. Now people (perhaps ancient Greeks) likely though rocks were ‘eternal’ but now today we know they are made up of atoms which are made up of protons which are made of quarks. Going back in time for our universe, all that would have existed were quarks, neutrinos, electrons (?), photons (?) we don’t really know exactly if these particles are made up of more fundamental particles or not. So how can I say if a quark is eternal if it is made up of other things?
I think that you have to end with a ‘brute fact’ in a sense either from a theist or non-theist position.
I am not sure. I’m not personally an advocate for ex-nihilo from either a scientific or even theological point. Nobody really believes that ‘everything came from nothing’ I would say in my opinion either way. Maybe what you are referring to is more so in the case did matter exist before time t=0 in the conventional timeline or not which I think is blurry but I think most would concede some part of this. But there had to have been something before this point in anyone’s model (albeit the laws of Physics or an omnipotent creator).
2 Likes
Fair enough. My posts thus far have been focused mainly on the scientific perspective only perhaps in light of the original post regarding Stephen Hawking.
Makes sense. I think one would immediately run into problems though. Imagine a Christian, Muslim, and a Hindu all get together in a room with some Cosmologists.
The cosmologists get done presenting much of the stuff in this thread and then some, indicating that there is presently a lack of knowledge as to the beginning and future state of our universe.
The Christian and Muslim are excited about the Big Bang Model. After all, their holy books actually predicted the Big Bang and are entirely consistent with it. They then proceed to explain what really happened in the beginning of our universe but soon begin to argue with each other. There is no way to judge scientifically between them and the theological debates rage on for a few thousand more years.
And then the Hindu shows this Youtube video titled “NASA rejects BigBang theory & accept VEDIC explanation”. Stunned the cosmologists try to explain that is absolute hogwash but he and thousands of other people with their viewpoint all cry foul against the cosmologists, Christians and Muslims. They then continue to debate for another thousand years.
While all three are debating, cosmologists are building models of the early universe, building telescopes to test those models and other clever methods. I wholeheartedly agree with your desire, but I do not think that it is practical to really try and get scientists, philosophers and theologians in the same room given the nature of how science is done and theories are judged. Regardless of what happens in our inquiry to the natural world, it can never falsify any religious belief–all science can do is put restraints on how religious claims can be interpreted.
(emphasis mine) No. No. No. No. No. No. We’ve been over this so many times already. I give up, I really do. The universe did not emerge out of ‘nothing.’ No cosmologist says this. And if they did, someone likely is quote mining them. The only people who I have ever heard say this are theists, in particular Christians since I interact with them the most! This is just not true and science does not say it came from nothing.
There is one example demonstrating my point. Cosmologists do not argue that the universe came from nothing. Never have, never will.
The age of when something was discovered has nothing to do with how it ought to be grouped. This is what I had in mind when I used such language:
General Relativity generally falls within the ‘classical mechanics’ portion dealing with objects larger than a nanometer and moving much slower than the speed of light , even though most of ‘classical mechanics’ was worked out long before GR came about.
This is like saying the gravitational force is infinitely strong the closer two objects get (just looking at Newton’s law of universal gravitation for simplicity) because when you plug a distance of zero into his equations, the force becomes infinite. Just because Newton’s Law suggests such, doesn’t mean that it’s true. It just means that the law only applies to certain realms/scenarios and is not applicable in other systems. As in, neither are applicable when Quantum Mechanics are relevant and because Quantum Mechanics is relevant in the beginning of the universe, then the ‘sure’ results of General Relativity are invalid.
You’re welcome.
1 Like
I don’t see why that is such a major problem for you, couldn’t God have created the quantum world? We would then just be moving creation further backwards, not denying it. In fact, the main criticism against Krauss’s book is precisely the fact that quantum vacuum is not “nothing”, and therefore it doest not make sense to say that the universe created itself from nothing.