Virtual particles and the existence of God

[coolduude]

How do virtual particles affect the existence of God?

For the lost:

Virtual particles have no apparent cause; they create themselves. With virtual particles ‘something comes from nothing’.

***** The dimensions of space and time are inextricably linked in a field named “spacetime.” Spacetime is the very fabric of the universe, and it is in spacetime that we exist. All of spacetime is overlaid by electron-positron fields that are essentially electromagnetic in nature. (The positron is the antiparticle of the electron and is positively charged.) It is possible for photons (the smallest constituent part of a light wave) to interact with and transfer its energy to an electron-positron field. When this happens, an electron and a positron are created from the field. These are real particles, and not virtual. Occasionally, however, particles can create themselves out of an electron-positron field without the energy from a photon to convert into mass. Ideally, due to the Law of Conservation of energy, this could not happen. However, due to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle the energy of a system can become uncertain thus making it possible for these particles to exist for a limited amount of time. The lifespan of a virtual particle is on the order of 10-43 second and decreases as the non- existant energy used to create the particle and its antiparticle increases. Virtual particles, unlike their real counterparts, are undectable and do not interfere with the physical world. The proof of their existance lies in that they affect probabilities of scattering processes by offering alternate pathways for the scattering, and so their presence can be observed by comparing computed probabilities to the actual results.

And from Yahoo Answers:
Virtual particle pairs are postulated to come into existance because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Basicaly it says that you cannot know either energy or rate of change of energy, both precisely. An area that is known to have zero particle and zero energy violates that since you know both precisely at the same time, zero and zero.
So an area of zero-everything violates the HUP. In such a situation virtual particles are thought to materialize and vaporize into and out of existance, thereby creating a small uncertainty in the local energy.

Take the event horizon of a black hole,for instance: It should have zero energy density and zero rate of change of energy there since it all gets pulled into the bh. But you can’t have exactly zero, you have to have some kind of fluctuation so it is postulated that virtual particle pairs come in and out of existance.

This is a result of quantum physics.

So if virtual particles do not have a real cause it can be argued that the universe could have poped into existence (like one giant virtual particle).

So how do virtual particles affect the existenceof God? Any help here?

 

[tonyrey]

There is a vast difference between the entire universe popping into existence and subatomic particles doing so.

There is also the diabolically difficult problem of explaining how rational, purposeless beings have emerged from irrational, purposeless particles… On this occasion the devil, for a change, has come to our assistance - although without having been asked to do so.

 

[TomD123]

Although the particles can “pop” into existence, this would still not explain where this **ability **came from. Where did the physical laws that enable this action to take place come from? So everything does need a cause in some way

 

[presidentjlh]

I fail to see how this affects the existence of God. Just because we can’t detect the reason why these “virtual particles” pop into existance doesn’t mean that God still can’t do it. In fact, one could turn around and say this is proof of God, as He is making something out of nothing, which is pure creation.

Really, there is no scientific way to prove or disprove the existance of God.

I do have to wonder, though, as someone that believes in God, why He is creating these little virtual particles?

He must be bored.

 

[tonyrey]

I fail to see how this affects the existence of God. Just because we can’t detect the reason why these “virtual particles” pop into existance doesn’t mean that God still can’t do it. In fact, one could turn around and say this is proof of God, as He is making something out of nothing, which is pure creation.

Really, there is no scientific way to prove or disprove the existence of God.

I do have to wonder, though, as someone that believes in God, why He is creating these little virtual particles?

He must be bored.

Have you never experienced delight in your power of invention and creativity? Does everything have to be useful? Colours are not necessary for survival but the universe would be very drab without them…

 

[spockrates]

Fascinating! Since virtual reality is not actual reality, how can virtual particles be actual particles? Can something virtual be real?

 

[presidentjlh]

Have you never experienced delight in your power of invention and creativity? Does everything have to be useful? Colours are not necessary for survival but the universe would be very drab without them…

Well, I don’t know, my power of invention and creativity is quite lackluster

Of course God can take delight in His powers of invention and creativity. I was merely attempting some humor.

 

[itinerant1]

Although the particles can “pop” into existence, this would still not explain where this **ability **came from. Where did the physical laws that enable this action to take place come from? So everything does need a cause in some way

Every event does require an antecedent cause or confluence of causes, which is exactly why particles or anything else cannot just pop into existence, as modern physicists following the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics falsely assert.

 

[kat_holos]

I had the same problem with an atheist whom I’m trying to convince that God exists…until I realized that the random temporal existence of virtual particles can neither disprove God’s existence nor can we draw conclusion from it that everything in this Cosmos came from nothing. Why?

Just because there are random events in nature, one can make conlcusion that everything in Nature is governed by randomness or chaos, or that everything came to existence from nothing due to a random event - this is a faulty assumption. Remember what these virtual particle supports…a hierarchial, organized structure - an atom. Probably God allowed random events to occur in order to drive processes in Nature into motion in a away that is energy efficient and sustainable. Example, what if radioactive decay won’t happen randomly/spontaneously? Then it would require other forces/energy to act on a particle or element to decay or transform it to another form - something which is wasteful of energy and not sustainable, besides, I doubt if radioactive decay would even happen if it doesn’t occur spontaneously. I am a physician and we sometimes use radioactive materials to treat and diagnose certain diseases, it would have a devastating effect on the medical field if radioactive decay would not occur - or even probably harmful because certain radioactive particles would continually emit radiation and not decay into a nonradioactive element.

So there is purpose for why random events occur in nature like the temporal existence of virtual particle. Though their occurance is less predictable, the systems they support are predictable, observable, and measurable. Now, if there is purpose, then there should have been an Intelligent Designer who have thought of that purpose before hand.

With regards their (virtual particles) coming into existence from NOTHING - NOTHING is actually no longer a realm of Science, it is where Faith dominates. Who knows if these particles are continually being formed on the “other side” by the Creator to continually sustain the entire Cosmos…

It is not the Nothingness that disproves or prove God’s existence, it is the ORDER of the entire Cosmos that has a say on the existence of God. There is order in the whole Cosmos that is why Science and Math exists…and if there is order, then there has to be a Designer.

“Those who engage in scientific and technological research admit as the premise of its progress, that the world is not a chaos but a “cosmos”- that is to say, that there exist order and natural laws which can be grasped and examined, and w…hich, for this reason, have a certain affinity with the spirit. Einstein used to say: “What is eternally incomprehensible in the world is that it is comprehensible”. This intelligibility, attested to by the marvellous discoveries of science and technology, leads us, in the last analysis, to that transcendent and primordial Thought imprinted on all things.” - Pope John Paul II

 

[danserr]

particles can create themselves out of an electron-positron field without the energy from a photon to convert into mass.

If they are “creating themselves” out of an electron positron field, then they aren’t creating themselves out of nothing, are they? Something exists from which they are created.

Second, a lot of physicists are unhappy with the in-deterministic view (the Copenhagen view) and are considering alternative deterministic theories like those of Bohm.

 

[FakeNameEury]

I had this argument a few days ago with some one.

(Sorry if I have bad grammer and spelling.)

So basicly, a person was arguing that virtual particles exist and proposed that they can affect the existence of God argument.

After reading a bit on the material he stated me to read(it was wiki.)
I found that virtual particles have to by multiplied through time to be considered possibly real. Since “pre-Big Bang” or the absense of the universe would mean that there is no time or space. I found that all I had to say was that if virtual particles existed, they couldn’t exist in a state of nothingness.

This is based on what wiki gives though. I’m not really sure about these things and would like to know what is going on. All I know is that they have to suppose these things are real because of uncertain situations and that they must exist in a time frame and Thermodynamics and Quantum don’t mix that well.

(This is my first post here, hopefully I didn’t just spam this area with irrelevant material.)

 

[TimothyH]

Did you guys see the headline?

CERN Physicists: God Particle May be a Mirage

For some scientists, the Higgs remains the simplest explanation of how matter got mass. It remains unclear what could replace it as an explanation. “We know something is missing, we simply don’t quite know what this new something might be,” wrote CERN blogger Pauline Gagnon.

Read more: foxnews.com/scitech/2011/08/23/god-particle-may-be-mirage-scientists-hint/#ixzz1W4lirQL5

When I worked in engineering we used to say, “In God we trust. All other’s bring data.” At least the scientists are honest.

-Tim-

 

[lemondiesel]

sorry OP, your post trips me out so I wont even attempt to answer haha.

There is a vast difference between the entire universe popping into existence and subatomic particles doing so.

Couldn’t there have been prior universes with less and less particles, eventually comes unstable, blows up (creating more energy and more possible particles) until this universe was finally created?

There is also the diabolically difficult problem of explaining how rational, purposeless beings have emerged from irrational, purposeless particles…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_McKenna#The_.22Stoned_Ape.22_Theory_of_Human_Evolution

Although the particles can “pop” into existence, this would still not explain where this **ability **came from. Where did the physical laws that enable this action to take place come from? So everything does need a cause in some way

Is it impossible for VP to just be unable to ‘not exist’ and constantly coming in and out? I mean we are talking about Creation, so isn’t anything possible?

It is not the Nothingness that disproves or prove God’s existence, it is the ORDER of the entire Cosmos that has a say on the existence of God. There is order in the whole Cosmos that is why Science and Math exists…and if there is order, then there has to be a Designer.

It’s not like the entire universe just went BOOM, everything worked and fell into place. There was a time of complete chaos, but with the creation of atoms, gravity over time brought Order into the the cosmos.

 

[BVM_1221]

How do virtual particles affect the existence of God?

So how do virtual particles affect the existenceof God? Any help here?

I doubt it. The First Cause arguement is the standard “proof” of God. Nothing in science can prove or disprove the existence of God. :dts::dts::dts:

 

[MindOverMatter2]

How do virtual particles affect the existence of God?

It doesn’t.

For the lost:

Virtual particles have no apparent cause; they create themselves. With virtual particles ‘something comes from nothing’.

I keep saying this time and time again and yet it appears as if people are compelled to ignore the epistemological differences between scientific definitions and metaphysical definitions.

When a thing is not expressed or known within its proper context it can appear to mean something which it does not. Taking something out of context is the root of many deceptions. When speaking in the context of methodological naturalism and inductive physics, it is impossible to claim metaphysical knowledge. The scientific method does not and cannot include within its epistemological reach a knowledge of a true nothingness; that something has come form a true “nothing”. Science is the study of physical “realities”; and it can only claim true theoretical knowledge in so far as a thing is “real” and is “measurable”.

A scientific “nothingness” (empty space) necessarily refers to a completely different idea to what people usually mean by nothing (the absolute negation of existence). When a scientist, who is working within the epistemological confines of the scientific method, claims that a thing came from nothing or that a thing has no cause, what they mean by this is that a thing came from nothing “physical” or that a thing has no physical or mechanistic cause. Given the “methodological assumption” of naturalism, the scientist concludes that it came from nothing, as in, “nothing physical”. But this is not the same as a “metaphysical statement”. You cannot claim, on the basis of a “methodological assumption” that science has true knowledge of a metaphysical absolute, since the naturalistic assumption that underlies the scientific method is merely a tool by which a scientist can filter out non-scientific data. It is therefore not an act of true positive knowledge. By invoking methodological naturalism one is not making a positive claim to the “knowledge” that all is physical or that it is a metaphysical possibility for a thing to manifest itself - including the natural powers by which it becomes manifest - out of a “negation” or “absence” of existence and natural power. It is merely claiming that it is possible for a thing to come in to being or move without a “physical-mechanistic-cause”.

Far from negating God, science is helping us to prove the metaphysical fact that while the evolution of the universe is certainly a physical operation, the “existence” of the physical universe and its natural powers cannot be reduced to a mere physical mechanistic cause and therefore requires different kinds of causes that do not fall within the operative definition of “physical”.

There is a difference between the metaphysical understanding of causality and the scientific understanding of “physical causes”. The first cause argument is not operating withing the epistemological context of physics.

People who claim otherwise are either deceptive charlatans or just plain ignorant of the facts they claim to be experts on.

It seems people like to pretend that they are well versed in science and yet they are completely ignorant of the “meta-science” that one requires in order to interpret physical data according to its proper epistemological context.

 

[Ismael]

How do virtual particles affect the existence of God?

For the lost:

Virtual particles have no apparent cause; they create themselves. With virtual particles ‘something comes from nothing’.

That is not exactly true, Virtual particles are different than normal particles but DO exhibit some of the phenomena that real particles d. The, for example DO obey to the conservation laws.

They also do not ‘come from nothing’ as such.

1- Virtual particles, such as virtual photons, are the carriers of electromagnetic force (ie. the attraction or repulsion between charges and magnetic poles). Hence they are not ‘from nothing’ but a magnetic field or an electric field (i.e. a static or moving charge) must be present!

The concept of virtual particles arises in the perturbation theory of quantum field theory, an approximation scheme in which interactions between real particles (like electromagnetic interaction) are calculated in terms of exchanges of virtual particles.

2- It is true that vacuum does produce virtual particles (see the Casimir effect) BUT vacuum is NOT EMPTY.

Also in the modern and current understanding of Quantum Mechanics energy conservation is not violated at all by virtual particles! Nor by anything else!

First we can not even truly achieve a perfect ‘matter and field free vacuum’ on Earth. No matter how good our vacuum pumps are there is always some particle or atom or molecule in there.
Moreover is ALWAYS a gravitational and electric field (albeit undetectably small) present.

Now even if we in theory we could produce a perfectly matter and field free vacuum such vacuum would NOT be empty it still has a Vacuum Energy Level!

Actually some scientists claim that our vacuum is not even a ‘true vacuum’, i.e. it does not have the lowest possible energy, even.

Virtual particles in vacuum are also called vacuum fluctuations of vacuum energy. In a certain sense, they can be understood to be a manifestation of the time-energy uncertainty principle in a vacuum, where vacuum energy (or a portion of it) is for a very short time transformed into two particles who annihilate to become energy again.

In technical terms: the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian (the mathematical operator in the Schrodinger equation that gives the energy for each state of the wavefunction) are not the same as the particle number operators (the mathematical operators that give the number of particles). .

The dimensions of space and time are inextricably linked in a field named “spacetime.” Spacetime is the very fabric of the universe, and it is in spacetime that we exist. All of spacetime is overlaid by electron-positron fields that are essentially electromagnetic in nature.

This is a hypothesis, not certain.

However, due to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle the energy of a system can become uncertain thus making it possible for these particles to exist for a limited amount of time. The lifespan of a virtual particle is on the order of 10-43 second and decreases as the non- existant energy used to create the particle and its antiparticle increases.

10^-43s is the Planck time… virtual particles could have longer lifetimes.

Virtual particles, unlike their real counterparts, are undectable and do not interfere with the physical world. The proof of their existance lies in that they affect probabilities of scattering processes by offering alternate pathways for the scattering, and so their presence can be observed by comparing computed probabilities to the actual results

.

The Casimir effect is a force between two plates caused by such fluctuations. So they are indirectly detectable.

Take the event horizon of a black hole ,for instance: It should have zero energy density and zero rate of change of energy there since it all gets pulled into the bh. But you can’t have exactly zero, you have to have some kind of fluctuation so it is postulated that virtual particle pairs come in and out of existence.

The surface of a black hole is not at zero energy, or at least it is not the only solution. Also black holes do change and their surface (event horizon) grows as they acquire mass…

Also Hawking radiation is due to virtual particles at the edge of the event horizon. There one particle falls into the BH and the other flies away.

Due to conservation of energy, the black hole loses energy, hence mass, and so it appears to ‘evaporate’.

Although Hawking radiation still has to be proven.

So if virtual particles do not have a real cause it can be argued that the universe could have poped into existence (like one giant virtual particle).

So how do virtual particles affect the existence of God? Any help here?

If they have real cause then it is legitimate to ask… where does this real cause (that is the Vacuum Energy) come from?

Since vacuum energy is something that fluctuates, hence it’s a contingent thing, it cannot be the ultimate cause, since no ultimate cause can be contingent.

So virtual particles do not deny God nor the necessity of God as ‘creator’(*).

More importantly virtual particles do NOT violate CAUSALITY! Even if they do not have an “efficient cause” they still have an ontological and material cause, the vacuum energy!

Moreover, since a true vacuum void of all matter and fields is not acheivable… for all we know the virtual particles we detect in vacuum do not even come from vacuum energy itself.

---

NOTE:
(*)

A word regarding ‘creator’ and ‘creation’. Thomas Aquinas, in his philosophy, did not actually state that the universe had a temporal beginning. In his opinion it could not be proven, although he did believe it had (we proved it through science).

Hence Aquinas’ arguments and many arguments from Classical Theism do NOT rest on the assumption that the universe had a beginning.

For Aquinas’ the universe STILL needed a creator, ontologically and by metaphysical necessity, even if it always existed.

So even if the ‘Big bounce theory’ is true, where the universe inflates and then deflates and then inflates again through a new big bang (which probably isn’t true according to the data we have for now) the universe still needed a creator ontologically and still needed God to exist.

For more information I think you should check Peter Kreeft series on Aquinas and Edward Feser’s ‘Aquinas’. They are very well put together and are not to tough on the philosophy layman.

Or for the more erudite: “Aquinas” by F C Copleston; “Aquinas” and “The tought of Thomas Aquinas” by Brian Davis; “The philosophy of Aquinas” by Pasnau and Shields and “Aquinas” by Stump.

ANOTHER NOTE:

A scientific “nothingness” (empty space) necessarily refers to a completely different idea to what people usually mean by nothing (the absolute negation of existence).

Scientists like Krauss or Hawking that speak about ‘creation from nothing’ are basically “liars”…

They define something existent (like zero point energy) as ‘nothing’… but that is not nothing.

Also they require certain PHYSICAL LAWS to be present for their theory to work… and such physical laws are not nothing… they are something existent or at least the manifestation of something existent.

So when some scientists talk about ‘creatio ex nihilo’ are basically deceiving people.

 

[Ismael]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_McKenna#The_.22Stoned_Ape.22_Theory_of_Human_Evolution

This sounds like nonsense. Terence McKenna is not a biologist nor a neuroscientist… and his theory sounds incredibly far fetches… maybe he was doing shrooms when he thought of it… THAT would make sense

This idea sounds like Dawkins’ meme idea: quite unphysical and quite useless as a scientific explanation.

 

[Ismael]

Quote:
The dimensions of space and time are inextricably linked in a field named “spacetime.” Spacetime is the very fabric of the universe, and it is in spacetime that we exist. All of spacetime is overlaid by electron-positron fields that are essentially electromagnetic in nature.

This is a hypothesis, not certain.

Sorry I was quite wrong here. The positron-electron pairs do arise (it’s called Vacuum Polarization) and was proven in 1997 in Japan.

Still such pairs are formed by the underlying electromagnetic field in vacuum… so they are not from ‘nothing’.

 

[Touchstone]

There is a vast difference between the entire universe popping into existence and subatomic particles doing so.

Actually, there’s not ANY difference, according to several current cosmological models in physics. Since the late 1980s or whenever Alexander Vilenkin published “Creation of Universes from Nothing”, or maybe Alan Guth’s “Cosmic Inflation” is a better starting point, we’ve had competing hypotheses gaining ground with the idea that universes, including our universe began in just such a fashion.

A leading contender currently holds that our universe (like other universes) began as a quantum flux event, AND as a “zero energy” transaction. That means that not even the provisioning and conservation of energy is a problem, since energy is “netted to zero” in the newly and spontaneously spawned universe by positive and negative energy.

There is also the diabolically difficult problem of explaining how rational, purposeless beings have emerged from irrational, purposeless particles… On this occasion the devil, for a change, has come to our assistance - although without having been asked to do so.

It’s a complex problem, but no more “diabolical” than explaining how non-wet hydrogen and non-wet oxygen atoms combine to form… wet water. It just can’t happen, I tell ya, right? I mean, there’s no wetness, and you’ve got H and O, and then – BOOM! – you have H2O and wetness! No rational analyzer would just accept that “wet water” emerged from “wetless atoms”!

The human brain is way more complex than a water molecule, but the idea of emergence, of new properties obtaining in the configurations and situations of more fundamental elements, is the same.

-TS

 

[DeepBlueSea]

It’s a complex problem, but no more “diabolical” than explaining how non-wet hydrogen and non-wet oxygen atoms combine to form… wet water. It just can’t happen, I tell ya, right? I mean, there’s no wetness, and you’ve got H and O, and then – BOOM! – you have H2O and wetness! No rational analyzer would just accept that “wet water” emerged from “wetless atoms”!

The human brain is way more complex than a water molecule, but the idea of emergence, of new properties obtaining in the configurations and situations of more fundamental elements, is the same.

-TS

Well, wetness is just what we sense, a spatial reality if you like. In actual fact, it is just transient hydrogen bond forming, breaking and reforming across H20’s tetrahedral structure. If you get shrink into nano size, I don’t think you can still appreciate this so-called wetness.

And what is quantum flux event? Care to explain? That zero-energy transaction theory sounds intriguing. Do the laws of thermodynamics still hold?