Help with an [edited] arguement of quantum mechanics

[Chany8920]

I was wondering if anyone could help me with an anti-God argument involving quantum mechanics an another Christian forum site. I’m rather ignorant of the subject of quantum mechanics, and was wondering if anyone could help. Here is what he said after I stated our universe is finite and that something cannot come from nothing:

“Things accually CAN come from nothing. In empty space particles are randomly and rapidly popping in and out of existence. They appear for a short time with a lot of energy and disappear. Or with a little energy and stay for a bit longer. Our universe has a total energy of nearly 0 which would allow it to stay in existence for an extremely long time. Look up quantum mechanics.”

Please explain what he is talking about and how to respond.

 

[DJK100]

I was wondering if anyone could help me with an anti-God argument involving quantum mechanics an another Christian forum site. I’m rather ignorant of the subject of quantum mechanics, and was wondering if anyone could help. Here is what he said after I stated our universe is finite and that something cannot come from nothing:

“Things accually CAN come from nothing. In empty space particles are randomly and rapidly popping in and out of existence. They appear for a short time with a lot of energy and disappear. Or with a little energy and stay for a bit longer. Our universe has a total energy of nearly 0 which would allow it to stay in existence for an extremely long time. Look up quantum mechanics.”

Please explain what he is talking about and how to respond.

First when he says that things are popping in and out of existence from nothing that is untrue. What exists in empty space is what Hawkings calls “potenial energy of a vacuum.” So in essence empty space is not “nothing” meaning void of every thing but is actually filled with potenial energy. E=mc^2 so you can have matter popping into and out of existence from “nothing” even though “nothing” is still a form of energy. So that statment is a little misleading.

When he says our universe has a total energy of 0 he is again referring to the fact that this potential energy of a vacuum is a negative energy so it cancels out the postitive energy that we have thus the the 0.

I don’t know if this arguement would work but you could try that would make the absolute value of energy in the universe as positive (absoulte value of postitve + absolute value of negative) = they are both existing forms of energy. Because negative and positive energy usually balence one out you would expect 0. However, in a vacuum you only see that negative potential energy. Therefore if you change your reference point you would say that energy is actually real and something which means it exists. Energy must come from something so withing in that vacuum in the absence of positive energy you left with a surplus of negative energy making that system have unopposed energy and thus and absoulte postive of energy which must come from somewhere and is why you can have “spontaneous” particles generated.

Maybe someone more versed on the matter can see if my thinking makes sense in the above paragraph.

The point to bring up is just because he says “vacuum” or “nothing” he still is not actually referring to nothing in terms of absoluetly bereft of everything. You still have that negative potential energy.

The other thing to remember,at least how I pieced it together, and I am not a physicist, is that Hakwins theory still doesn’t account for our universe. He basically says that our Universe exploded from a multiverse but he can’t explain the first cause of the multiverse. So even then you have to consider that he still can’t explain where all this energy came from in the first place.

See this thread: Good guy Greg does pretty good job of explaining Hawkins stance and some of the quantum physics behind it.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=587394

 

[Chany8920]

To recap and make sure I understand:

His mistake is that there is actually energy where he refers to as nothing. This energy is the result of the creation of the universe, as the universal equation needs to balance out. So, where there appears to be nothing, there is actually something, keeping up with the notion, “something cannot come from nothing.”

Thanks in advance.

 

[DJK100]

To recap and make sure I understand:

His mistake is that there is actually energy where he refers to as nothing. This energy is the result of the creation of the universe, as the universal equation needs to balance out. So, where there appears to be nothing, there is actually something, keeping up with the notion, “something cannot come from nothing.”

Thanks in advance.

I think that is pretty close. The fact that we have “negative potential energy” is still energy and that energy had to come from somewhere even if it sill is balenced out by positive energy.

The fact that there is energy means that it must have come from somewhere even if the universes sum total is zero otherwise we truly would have nothing which we know is not the case because we can see particles materialize from that “nothing.”

That is kind of how I view it.

 

[Redeemed92]

You guys are pretty close, but I can fill in a little more if you wish.

What your friend seems to be describing is the notion of virtual particles. These particles arise from one of the central equations of quantum mechanics: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. It says that on the smallest of scales, one cannot know both the position and momentum of a particle with absolute certainty. Either you know the position with a high degree of precision or you know the momentum with a high degree of precision. You can’t know both at the same time. Playing with the equations a little bit more results in finding that you can’t also determine the value of field (e.g. electric) with high certainty, because a field is just made up of a ton of particles.

If you think about this, you should see what your friend is getting at. If one were say, “That space over there, right outside our solar system, is totally empty,” then in effect what has been said is that you know that the value of the field in that area is zero. This is not allowed by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. So fields in space are always fluctuating, and since fields are made up of particles, it is possible for a particle to pop into existence, and it is usually accompanied by its anti-particle.

These effects are observable. If a particle and an anti-particle pop into existence at the edge of a black hole, it is possible for the anti-particle to be sucked in to the black hole, while the particle is ejected. This would result in the black hole shrinking in mass, and the black hole radiating.

This is now called Hawking Radiation.

This is NOT the same thing as something coming from nothing. So far, a prior quantum cosmological era doesn’t look possible with our universe. We can’t avoid the singularity. And, so far, the multiverse theory does seem to me to have much empirical evidence.

(Sorry if you didn’t want all the details, I am a physics student and felt called to answer this)

Now, for the rest of the story, make sure you listen to this:

focusequip.org/discover/cultural-apologetics/relativism-and-atheism/fr-robert-spitzer-sj-astrophysics-and-creation.html

 

[Al_Moritz]

Good things have been said here already.

The ‘physical nothing’ of empty space, the quantum vacuum, is not really nothing at all, see this article by cosmologist Luke Barnes:

letterstonature.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/of-nothing/

and the article by cosmologist Stephen Barr:

firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/09/much-ado-about-ldquonothingrdquo-stephen-hawking-and-the-self-creating-universe

This article by Luke Barnes:

letterstonature.wordpress.com/2011/04/16/more-sweet-nothings/

deals with the issue of zero energy and, apart from highlighting the philosophical absurdity of confusing this with ‘nothing’, argues, with citations from the cosmological literature, that a calculation of the total mass-energy of the universe is not even possible on a technical level.

 

[hazmat]

your atheist friend is wrong. by definition, something cannot come from nothing.

 

[Calgar]

He wants you to prove or disprove his claim?

Don’t do his work for him. He made a claim, it’s on him to prove it.

 

[dmelosi]

He wants you to prove or disprove his claim?

Don’t do his work for him. He made a claim, it’s on him to prove it.

I think that is what he thought he did.

 

[JDaniel]

I was wondering if anyone could help me with an anti-God argument involving quantum mechanics an another Christian forum site. I’m rather ignorant of the subject of quantum mechanics, and was wondering if anyone could help. Here is what he said after I stated our universe is finite and that something cannot come from nothing:

“Things actually CAN come from nothing. In empty space particles are randomly and rapidly popping in and out of existence. They appear for a short time with a lot of energy and disappear. Or with a little energy and stay for a bit longer. Our universe has a total energy of nearly 0 which would allow it to stay in existence for an extremely long time. Look up quantum mechanics.”

Please explain what he is talking about and how to respond.

Chany:

Ask him why they are called, “virtual particles?” We don’t call what it real Virtual. We call what is real Real. There is no proof that such particles pop in and out of existence. I think that they are existing bits of energy that show themselves and then disappear. That some of them persist is possible as some of them may well be annihilated - in proximity to black holes, for example. In my opinion, black holes are there to maintain equilibrium. How matter/energy re-cycles is still anyone’s guess. But, to say that they did not exist prior to their appearance is to state a preferentiality.

God bless,
jd

 

[cornbread_r2]

The consensus here seems to be:

1. Something cannot come from nothing
2. God created everything from nothing

How is that not contradictory?

In addition, how does all of that square with the assertion that there is no such thing as nothing?

(Bear in mind that for much of my life physics was just another word for laxatives.)

 

[JimmytheButcher]

I was wondering if anyone could help me with an anti-God argument involving quantum mechanics an another Christian forum site. I’m rather ignorant of the subject of quantum mechanics, and was wondering if anyone could help. Here is what he said after I stated our universe is finite and that something cannot come from nothing:

“Things accually CAN come from nothing. In empty space particles are randomly and rapidly popping in and out of existence. They appear for a short time with a lot of energy and disappear. Or with a little energy and stay for a bit longer. Our universe has a total energy of nearly 0 which would allow it to stay in existence for an extremely long time. Look up quantum mechanics.”

Please explain what he is talking about and how to respond.

I haven’t seen this discussed in years, not since my university days when I was in third year physics. He is talking about Hisenberg’s Principle. It states that quantum particles cannot be p(name removed by moderator)ointed. They cannot be p(name removed by moderator)ointed and predicted where they will be next because we haven’t figured out a way to do it. It’s really that simple.

Basically, we are still too ignorant in the physical sciences. We don’t even know how gravity works yet. It’s still a theory for crying out loud.

EDIT: Oh yeah, that’s right, silly me. Conservation of Energy and Conservation of Matter. Talk about those. And, maybe get into a discussion about Entropy and Enthalpy. Call his bluff on the most basic 16th century physics questions. And, just for fun entertain him with Bernoulli’s Equation to illustrate your points. His basic equation is probably the most useful tool there is when smokin’ out a rat.

 

[exnihilo]

“Things accually CAN come from nothing. In empty space particles are randomly and rapidly popping in and out of existence. They appear for a short time with a lot of energy and disappear. Or with a little energy and stay for a bit longer. Our universe has a total energy of nearly 0 which would allow it to stay in existence for an extremely long time. Look up quantum mechanics.”

It is amazing to me that an atheist would actually try to defend the idea that something comes from nothing. That is pure magic. And yet they will mock Christians for their magical thinking.

The consensus here seems to be:

1. Something cannot come from nothing
2. God created everything from nothing

How is that not contradictory?

In addition, how does all of that square with the assertion that there is no such thing as nothing?

God is not nothing. He did not create from nothing He created from His creative powers. His creative powers include the ability to create the physical world and creatures with souls. God’s creative power is not nothing. It is something.

None of that impacts the fact that there is no such thing as nothing since God eternally existed. He always was and thus there was always something.

 

[cho_pilo]

Chany:

Ask him why they are called, “virtual particles?”

Let me asnwer it. I think it’s because of their extremely short lifetime.

We don’t call what it real Virtual. We call what is real Real.

That is correct.

There is no proof that such particles pop in and out of existence.

That is incorrect. In fact the Casimir Effect experiment that would demonstrate their existance was carried out in 1995 and was successful.

I think that they are existing bits of energy that show themselves and then disappear.

That is actually a correct generic description, but it lacks accurate detail. They are pairs of negative energy and positive energy particles that are cause by field fluctuations.

That some of them persist is possible as some of them may well be annihilated - in proximity to black holes, for example.

You can always make the positive energy particle from a virtual particle pair persist if you can get it away from the negative energy particle.

In my opinion, black holes are there to maintain equilibrium. How matter/energy re-cycles is still anyone’s guess. But, to say that they did not exist prior to their appearance is to state a preferentiality.

God bless,
jd

I am confused by this statement. Who says that black holes do not exist prior to their appearance? Or did you just issue a statement about virtual particles without changing the context away from black holes? If that’s the case then they don’t exist prior to their appearance (as particles that is). They exist as potential in fields (such as an EM field).

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I
"Things accually CAN come from nothing. particles are randomly and rapidly popping in and out of existence. They appear for a short time with a lot of energy and disappear. Or with a little energy and stay for a bit longer.

He evidently thinks that by describing a scientifically demonstrated state of affairs that he has also therefore demonstrating the “efficient cause”, or lack-thereof, of the “existence” of specific events in question.

The argument succeeds only by being based upon a contextual fallacy and by being a straw-man of a real scientific theory. However, there is no need to go on a wild goose chase trying to understand quantum physics. You don’t have to know anything about quantum physics in-order to understand why this argument is flawed. You merely have to understand the epistemological basis upon which scientists present their theories when doing real science (as opposed to scientism).

Heres the problem.

1. Lets assume that they are literally talking about the real philosophical idea of absolutely nothing; which is what you are lead to assume by the way they present the argument. Absolutely nothing, by definition, is the absence of all theoretically possible and actual truth; this also means the absence of space, time, energy, and anything which has an act of being in any way shape or form. It is the absence of all reality and knowledge of it.
2. Science as a method of investigation can only make positive claims about what it can measure and demonstrate through experiment; and even then; there are still contextual limitations.
3. Science cannot measure nothing or the potentiality of nothing and therefore cannot make any legitimate claims about what nothing can do or what can come from it given the actual condition of absolutely nothing. They don’t even know that it can be a positively real condition as such that we can meaningfully speak of a thing coming from absolutely nothing (a metaphysical contradiction). It can only measure the physical. Therefore what science can say about the powers or potentialities of reality is epistemologically confined to physicality itself and nothing external to it.
4. Thus it becomes more than simply a scientific inference to say that a thing has come from nothing at all, for they can only measure the causal relationships of real physical things, and therefore have no epistemological grounds upon which to positively identified something coming from absolutely nothing.
5. A true scientist who understands the epistemological nature of his or her professional subject ought to know that when they say that a thing came from nothing, given methodological naturalism (as opposed to the assumption of metaphysical naturalism), they can only mean that the actuality of the object in question has no measurable origin (has no physical origin).
6. It came from nothing physical; and this only means that science has demonstrated that a particular object’s existence in any specific place or time is not reducible to a “physical cause” in the normal measurable sense of the term. Thus they can say that if a sufficient existential cause exists, it is not a physical cause; this is to say nothing definable in the context of space time and energy alone. But what they cannot say is that they have demonstrated that a thing can possibly come from absolutely nothing.
7. The question of whether or not a thing can come from nothing is clearly not something that the physical sciences can answer. And any honest person who isn’t interested in confusing, deceiving, and distorting science in-order to serve a personal agenda, will clearly see after a little honest studying that such questions can only be answered within the epistemological context of metaphysics.

Conclusion: Because i have exposed the fallacy that gives strength to the argument in the OP, we can actually analyses what evidence they truly have now that they lack the epistemological authority of the physical sciences to backup their fallacious conclusion.

1. Unless an atheist or proponent of the argument in the OP can actually give a coherent metaphysical proof that a thing can actually come from absolutely nothing without a sufficient cause, then the conclusion of the argument fails to demonstrate anything. The onus is on him or her to demonstrate that such is metaphysically possible. At the very least, they have not proved that their argument truly demonstrates real observable events. Thus as a metaphysical argument it fails miserably.
2. As a scientific argument it fails basic epistemological requirements. Absolutely Nothing - commonly understood - is not a measurable physical concept. Thus to speak of something coming out of it in an absolute sense is to transcend the epistemological capacity of the scientific method.
3. The real scientific theory is not talking about the nothingness in the metaphysical sense of the term; but in a different sense. Evidently scientists mean different things and us words differently when placed in the context of the physical sciences. I think others have already pointed that out; and i do not care to point it out any further.
4. The only way they can save their argument is by proving metaphysical naturalism with absolute certainty. Only then can they say that the scientific evidence demonstrates that physical objects literally pop in and out of nothing since only physical things exist. But they have not proven their case. All they have is weak assumptions.

Conclusion: the argument is flawed on all counts, and portrays a high degree of ignorance and arrogance in the minds of those who use it as an argument.

Quite frankly I am getting tired of refuting it. I mean no disrespect to the OP; i am happy to do it for those who cannot easily see the deception and are honest.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I was wondering if anyone could help me with an anti-God argument involving quantum mechanics an another Christian forum site. I’m rather ignorant of the subject of quantum mechanics, and was wondering if anyone could help. Here is what he said after I stated our universe is finite and that something cannot come from nothing:

“Things accually CAN come from nothing. In empty space particles are randomly and rapidly popping in and out of existence. They appear for a short time with a lot of energy and disappear. Or with a little energy and stay for a bit longer. Our universe has a total energy of nearly 0 which would allow it to stay in existence for an extremely long time. Look up quantum mechanics.”

Please explain what he is talking about and how to respond.

Here’s an experiment whereby particles interact even though they are not near each other at the same “time” at least as we measure time. Also particle/waves behave differently when watched…

Dr. Quantum – Double Slit Experiment. (YouTube 5:04)

Alan

 

[greylorn]

I was wondering if anyone could help me with an anti-God argument involving quantum mechanics an another Christian forum site. I’m rather ignorant of the subject of quantum mechanics, and was wondering if anyone could help. Here is what he said after I stated our universe is finite and that something cannot come from nothing:

“Things accually CAN come from nothing. In empty space particles are randomly and rapidly popping in and out of existence. They appear for a short time with a lot of energy and disappear. Or with a little energy and stay for a bit longer. Our universe has a total energy of nearly 0 which would allow it to stay in existence for an extremely long time. Look up quantum mechanics.”

Please explain what he is talking about and how to respond.

He’s talking about QM theory, not experimental reality, and is therefore talking nonsense. If you listen to the various documentary-channel nitwits for whom proper application of a sterile band-aid would be a challenge, yet who insist upon the title, “Doctor,” you’ll see that they make up whatever they want, to make their points.

Should you follow them on TV and in pop-science journals over the years, you’ll notice that whatever they make up today is entirely different from what they were making up a few years earlier. The half-life of an astronomy text book is about two years, because the “scientific data” are always changing.

It is a common ploy for those who think that they know something, from having taken a few micky-mouse courses or read some pop-science garbage, to “snow” those who are less educated. The atheist who’s read, “Quantum Physics, the Comic Book,” is no different from the theologian who’s taken twenty courses in abstruse Catholic theology. Both will use their alleged knowledge like a schoolyard bully uses his muscles, to intimidate you.

Don’t let it happen. Ask for a detailed explanation of their arguments. Honest thinkers will do their best to bring your mind up a few notches, like a friend with big muscles will invite you over to his basement gym for a barbell workout.

If you wish to engage, you must become an honest thinker yourself… You seem to have the mind for it. There is a simple test for you. If your own statement that, “…something cannot come from nothing,” applies to the creation of the universe by God, you have promise. Otherwise, your exchanges with pseudo-scientists will be forever limited to transfers of irrelevant opinions.