As readers will gather, the religion news was a bit late on Sunday. Here we are dragging in with our last news item Monday morning, like the tomcat back from his travels.
Well, it’s from Britain’s Daily Express:
The colossal question has troubled religions, philosophers and scientists since the dawn of time but now a Canadian team believe they have solved the riddle.
And the findings are so conclusive they even challenge the need for religion, or at least an omnipotent creator – the basis of all world religions.
Whoa! An omnipotent creator is not the basis of all the world’s religions; alert! horseshoe in the works.
Scientists have long known that miniscule particles, called virtual particles, come into existence from nothing all the time.
But a team led by Prof Mir Faizal, at the Dept of Physics and Astronomy, at the University of Waterloo, in Ontario, Canada, has successfully applied the theory to the very creation of existence itself.
Whatever the heck “the very creation of existence itself” means, it doesn’t come up a lot in science, which deals in verifiable/falsifiable statements, not generalities.
The prof did some calcs and came up with a grand theory.
Dr Mir said: “Something did not come from nothing. The universe still is nothing, it’s just more elegantly ordered nothing.”
Pass the joint.
Seriously, it’s probably not an Onion; the Abstract is below.
Physicist Rob Sheldon notes, re the oniony taste:
It’s hard to say. On the one hand, there are physicists like Lawrence Krauss who talk this way all the time. On the other hand, the three speculations in this announcement–total E = 0, double relativity, inflation–are all rejected by some physicists, and the intersection of those who believe all 3 is probably less than 10%, perhaps less than 1%.
So this is not consensus physics, and by no means a breakthrough.
On the other hand, the Express piece misspelled “Hadron” as “Hardron”, which I don’t think was intentional, but does suggest that the journo writing the article was not particularly diligent, so much of the spin might be blamed on the journo–not that I want to let the physicists off the hook, but spin-doctoring is rampant. Because if it were intentional like an Onion piece, there would be more misspellings and more double entendres, so the rarity of such features make it look like an accidental parody.
Because you are right, it is a parody. So the intelligentsia has become unintentionally self-parodying, which is like a dress designer being laughed off the runway, and that’s a sign that there is about to be a phase-change in PC, with “true intelligentsia” becoming counter-cultural, like the Velvet Revolution.
Velvet Revolution: Czechoslovakia leaves communism out with the non-recyclable trash, gets everything washed, scrubbed, and dry cleaned.
Note also the many meanings of the weasel word nothing. Was it Ravi Zacharias who said, “Nothing is what stones dream about”? But physics isn’t immune from post-modern word games.
Here’s the abstract:
In this paper, we consider the Wheeler-DeWitt equation modified by a deformation of the second quantized canonical commutation relations. Such modified commutation relations are induced by a Generalized Uncertainty Principle. Since the Wheeler-DeWitt equation can be related to a Sturm-Liouville problem where the associated eigenvalue can be interpreted as the cosmological constant, it is possible to explicitly relate such an eigenvalue to the deformation parameter of the corresponding Wheeler-DeWitt equation. The analysis is performed in a Mini-Superspace approach where the scale factor appears as the only degree of freedom. The deformation of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation gives rise to a Cosmological Constant even in absence of matter fields. As a Cosmological Constant cannot exists in absence of the matter fields in the undeformed Mini-Superspace approach, so the existence of a non-vanishing Cosmological Constant is a direct consequence of the deformation by the Generalized Uncertainty Principle. In fact, we are able to demonstrate that a non-vanishing Cosmological Constant exists even in the deformed flat space. We also discuss the consequences of this deformation on the big bang singularity. (Public access .pdf) – Cosmological Constant from a Deformation of the Wheeler-DeWitt Equation Remo Garattini, Mir Faizal. Oct 15, 2015. 11 pp. e-Print: arXiv:1510.04423 [gr-qc]
See also:
NPR: Can everything come from nothing? Doubtless, Smolin and co. will end up with laws of nature which aren’t really laws because they “evolve.” Much as if the number 23 changed its quantity over time.
and
In search of a road to reality
Follow UD News at Twitter!
Did parallel universe open up? Hundreds see ‘floating city’ filmed in skies above China
Multiverse confirmed!
You can tell this is a reputable site from their sidebar articles: “Abducted woman draws star map of exact constellation of alien home” and “Another UFO caught monitoring International Space Station”
Wonder what the physicists think, finding themselves in the middle of all that? 😉
“Scientists have long known that minuscule particles, called virtual particles, come into existence from nothing all the time.” Later the article says that “from nothing” means no energy. In computer science, “virtual” implies that what you think you are seeing, isn’t real, but actually just a part of a real thing. So, I think this is just a joke, just to rile up believers.
Milly and Paul went to Mel’s Diner for breakfast, just as the dawning of the Sun’s light began to pierce the morning clouds. They had ordered ham and eggs with a side of toast and then became mesmerized by the orange, pink, red, and brilliant yellows spreading over the distant horizon, as they looked intently through the window next to their table. When the clinking of some glass plates interrupted their focus they noticed the ham, eggs, and toast were well placed on the table, they looked around and no waitress was in sight. How did the ham, eggs, and toast get there without their noticing?
Yes, of course, the virtual waitress brought the ham, eggs, and toast to the table. Milly and Paul laughed nervously and began to chatter about how their breakfast, the display of lights, and the transfixed focus could only be the result of a virtual waitress. They were just about ready to leave money for the breakfast when the virtual waitress appeared. Milly and Paul needed to go and share their discovery at the University of Waterloo. As they got to the car, Milly and Paul stopped and Paul said, “Listen”. They heard some voices in the distance, looked at the diner and noticed some smoke rising from the back of the diner. The voices were laughing about some Ons family … the gluons and muons, the fermions and bosons, the mesons and baryons … who were these Ons? Must be foreigners. And bursts of laughter.
Milly and Paul decided to investigate and walked to the rear of the diner. There was no one in sight, only cigarette butts by the back door. As Paul and Milly drove away they could not help looking back at the diner through the car’s mirrors.
This is a lie, of course. The observation of the sudden appearance of particles in the vacuum of space does not mean that particles come into existence from nothing and for no reason. This would violate the principle of causality.
The phenomenon can be easily explained by postulating that we live in a 4-dimensional reality in which our 3-D universe is moving in the other dimension. Particles seem to appear out of nowhere when our universe encounter them.
If one cannot explain a phenomenon, one cannot use it to come up with fundamental conclusions. This Canadian “team” is just a conspiracy of jackasses. However, it is true that everything is made of nothing. This is the only way to explain the composition of matter without falling into an infinite regress.
Alternatively, perhaps the principle of causality does not always hold.
It’s worth noting that crackpot cosmology is so entrenched in pop culture that Daily Express readers would be interested in this stuff. They are not interested in the results from the Large “Hardron” Collider. That is the part I find significant.
It’s worth noting that crackpot cosmology is so entrenched in pop culture that Daily Express readers would be interested in this stuff. They are not interested in the results from the Large “Hardron” Collider. That is the part I find significant.
daveS:
You’re always pushing your materialist/atheist agenda, eh dave? Separating cause from effect is like separating up from down or wet from dry. It’s not just nonsense, it’s stupid.
Atheist poster speaks with a forked tongue and he knows it. What else is new?
Mapou,
Can you explain what causes a uranium atom to undergo beta decay at a particular time?
daveS:
Yes I can but you don’t deserve to know. Swines trampling on pearls and all that.
I’m sure the Nobel Committee for Physics deserves to know.
daveS, speaking of entropic decay, can you explain the initial 1 in 10^10^123 entropic state of the universe, in purely naturalistic/materialistic terms, without winding up in complete epistemological failure?
Or daveS, can you perhaps also explain why an unstable particle will not experience decay if it is consciously observed?
What’s “entropic decay”? Does it have anything to do with beta decay?
daveS, I edited the word entropic out to help you understand more easily.,,,
You are welcome.
daveS:
The Nobel Committee for Physics deserves to know diddly squat. They, too, are a bunch of lying atheists and career butt kissers.
Right. I don’t think either of Mapou or I were speaking of “entropic decay”, if that term is even used in physics. I’m not finding much evidence of that.
Since I’m suggesting that radioactive decay might be uncaused, clearly I have no answer for your second question. I’m sure Mapou can help. Your first question is an obvious attempt to change the subject and has nothing to do with radioactive decay and whether it is caused or not.
daveS, you do not think that radioactive decay has anything to do with entropy? Where did you get that erroneous belief?
As to radioactive decay and the quantum zeno effect
As to you not having an answer for why an unstable particle will not decay upon conscious observation might I ask, “Why in blue blazes should conscious observation put a freeze on entropic decay unless consciousness was and is more foundational to reality than the 1 in 10^10^123 entropy is?”
The issue is that I don’t know what you meant by “entropic decay”.
Obviously the Quantum Zeno effect is directly related to radioactive decay, but I wasn’t contesting that.
But all this is neither here nor there. Mapou claims to know the cause of beta decay, but is for some reason reluctant to divulge this information.
I’m not a physicist. Maybe you should consult one and ask him or her why the majority of physicists disagree with you?
daveS, if you postulate something so wild as ‘does not have a cause’, and then balk when a plausible cause is clearly laid out for you, it does not reflect well on your intellectual integrity.
But at least you are consistent in your lack of integrity whenever it comes to evidence for God. 🙂
i.e. I’ve noticed that as long as the evidence does not directly implicate God as a cause you are fairly reasonable in interpreting that evidence. (Although this ‘does not have a cause’ claim of yours has me wondering if the irrationality you harbor against God is spreading to other parts of your brain)
On that note:
What was the proposed cause for beta decay? And what proportion of physicists agree with you?
The cause for the entire entropy of the universe, including all radioactive decay, is the ‘Creator’ of the universe i.e. God
as to:
And what proportion of physicists agree with you?
Well since even the atheist Stephen Hawking allowed his name to be associated with the “Creator’s aim’ sentence that Roger Penrose had originally penned, I will take it that the proportion of physicists is much higher than you, or they, are willing to let on.
Somehow I suspected God would be responsible.
This is pretty wild though:
It almost sounds like something a materialist would say!
daveS,
“It almost sounds like something a materialist would say!”
Yeah I thought so too and only held on to the study because of the interesting ‘mental impairment causes atheism’ angle. 🙂
Of related interest, you may enjoy this:
InspiringPhilosophy has a new video up:
The Case for the Soul (Near-Death Experiences) – video (of note: conservation of quantum information is discussed towards the end of the video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlBO0Y9GJhk
News,
Since your fellow Canadian scientists know so much, can you ask them to explain what exactly are gravitational, electromagnetic, nuclear weak and strong forces?
I’ll check later for their answers. Thanks.
God could not possibly have created the universe. I have it on good authority that he was quite busy that day.
AWSE (Assumed Without Sufficient Evidence) is the notion that the “nothing” from which these particles arise actually has nothing in it.
Folks:
The notion that the world is more elegantly ordered nothing is a patent equivocation of what nothing properly means in such a context: non-being.
Let us note:
See the underlying equivocation, a quantum foam “vacuum” full of energy with fluctuations is being equated to a reference zero state and voila something from nothing.
This is error of language, mathematics and physics.
Those tempted by such should ponder that non-being can have no causal powers so if there ever were a genuine utter nothing, just such would forever obtain.
The shadow we see lurking at the door is that this means there is in the root of reality — notice my shift of focus from universe — an unconditioned, necessary being sufficient to account for what we see.
Mix in signs aplenty of design via fine tuning that facilitates C-chem aqueous medium, cell based terrestrial planet life, and we see that a very plausible candidate is an awesomely powerful, highly intelligent, skilled, knowing, rational and purposeful designer.
Exponentiate by the evident reality that we are inescapably under moral government, showing signs of responsible rational freedom, and we begin to see that the root of reality should also be an IS that properly grounds OUGHT.
Though many will have a visceral hostility, this points straight to: the inherently good creator God, a necessary, maximally great being worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable service of doing the good in accord with our nature.
KF
DS: That there is a sufficient set of conditions that creates a population of possible outcomes sampled by the atom from time to time is a sufficient cause for the RA decay pattern to exist. What is much more relevant is for us to recognise that cause is not just about sufficient clusters of factors for event X to happen, but in some respects it is more important to recognise that there are causal factors that are of enabling/disabling character, i.e. causally necessary for X to be possible. In the case of sufficient clusters, they must inter alia contain all necessary factors. So, for instance each of heat, oxidiser, fuel and a chain rxn is necessary for and together the factors are jointly sufficient for a fire to exist. The decay of a U-atom cannot occur in absence of there being an atom of U with certain characteristic properties of its arranged components — which is already sufficient for it to be a contingent being, it is composite — that place it in the zone of instability beyond Pb. That we cannot predict just when a given U atom will decay does not remove the U atom, its characteristics and its behaviour from the domain of causality. KF
PS: Mountain out of mole-hill dept, anyone?
KF @ 31,
Well, I don’t know about that. I’m just saying that unless and until physicists discover why radioactive decay events happen at particular times, then you can’t rule out the possibility that they are uncaused.
The fact that we find the “principle of causality” to be generally accurate doesn’t mean there are no exceptions.
KF @30,
But impossible to test, no?
DS, so soon as something has a necessary, enabling causal factor, it CANNOT be a-causal. That we may not know the sufficient conditions for a particular U atom to decay at a given place and time is strictly irrelevant, we know what is sufficient to set up a population behaviour pattern, and that implies necessary factors, which are causes. Just ask firemen about how they fight fires by knocking out necessary, enabling on/off factors in the fire tetrahedron. KF
KF,
Let me be more specific. Say we monitor a sample of uranium with a geiger counter and record the times of decays with a stopwatch.
I’m saying that it may be in principle impossible to discern all necessary and sufficient conditions which guarantee the decay of an atom between t = 0 and t = 1 seconds.
Do you disagree with this?
To add to my #36, I’m not even convinced that it is possible to find any sufficient conditions which guarantee a decay in the first second. Perhaps none exist?
daveS thinks he’s onto something but don’t believe a word of it. He wants causality to be false in order to prop up his chicken shit atheist religion that calls for everything popping up out of nothing for no reason. Therefore, there is no need for God to create anything. It’s just a bunch of mental midgets doing BS science.
Physicists do not know why particle decay is probabilistic but it’s only because the physics community has been happily sitting on a mountain of crap for more than a century. The main reason for their ignorance is that they all believe in the existence of a time dimension. I wrote an explanation of probabilistic decay five years ago. I’m not going to repeat myself here. Here’s the link if anybody is interested:
How Einstein Shot Physics in the Foot, Part II
DS, irrelevant, I am afraid, as a-causal is overturned even trivially by necessary factors. Last I checked, Q-mech for such cases is genuinely stochastic at bottom, however the relevant point is that there are sufficient factors for the population of possibilities and outcomes — you set up a stochastic distribution and in effect it spontaneously samples yielding e.g. a very reliable half life showing a consistent effect, cosmos not chaos, just, stochastic cosmos. That is more than enough to remove a-causality and utterly disorderly chaos from the table. KF
kairosfocus @39,
I agree. A probabilistic universe is not an acausal universe. Causality has nothing to do with probability.
KF,
Exactly what are the necessary factors then, again referring to the decay of a single (or, at least one, if you prefer) uranium atom(s) between t = 0 and t = 1 second? Presumably one such necessary factor is the simple presence of uranium, but what else?
Every phenomenon is either an action or a reaction. The cause of a reaction (an emission) is an action that violates a symmetry conservation principle (an absorption). Uranium atoms and subatomic particles such as neutrons decay because there is violation of the conservation principle. The interaction time (how long it takes to emit a particle) is a function of the energies involved in the violation. Normally, we would expect all uranium atoms to decay at a fixed time. However, since time does not exist (it is abstract), nature cannot calculate the time of the interactions. The only way to obey the conservation principle in the long run is to cause a fixed percentage of the particles in the universe chosen randomly to decay at every instant.
Now you know why particle decay is probabilistic. It’s simple, really. It’s all cause and effect. Don’t let physicists fool you. They lie just as much as Darwinists.
What’s the quantity that’s being conserved?
daveS:
It does not matter, really. Any combination of matter that violates the symmetry of nature (particle spin directions, energy polarities, etc.) will cause a decay.
By the way, every change, including ordinary motion, consists of an absorption-decay (cause-effect or action-reaction) process. But it gets much better. If one takes causality to the limit, one will find that we are, in fact, moving in an immense lattice of energetic particles without which there could be no motion. In the future, we will learn how to tap into this energy lattice for extremely fast propulsion and unlimited clean energy generation. Just saying.
DS, to illustrate, just consider that absent a world with physics such as we have, with atoms as composite entities with nuclei balancing electrostatic repulsion and strong force attraction, with weak interactions also, the U atom would not have its particular properties. Then, that atom is trivially necessary for its propensity to decay to be active, and this then sets up the stochastic patterns with groups of U atoms of relevant isotopes. That is, the trivial presence of U points to a world of physics all the way back to the formation of our cosmos. As I keep pointing out, the stability of 1/2 life of populations of a given nuclide strongly points to a common circumstance in the nucleus that sets up the well known dN/dt = – lambda * N decay pattern that gives rise to the half life effect; which is empirically strongly confirmed to be a stable pattern under normal conditions (due to the difference between energy levels involved in the nucleus and typical macro-level external factors — chemistry and optics is ~ eV, nuke events, ~ 1 – 100+ MeV). Of course, fission is a different stochastically influenced behaviour. Post statistical mechanics, population based macro behaviours are a commonplace of physics. That you keep running away from the population to the single atom is telling something about rhetorical agenda. The decisive issue is right there, you admit it, presence of a U atom with properties tied to the roots of our world, are a necessary enabling condition for RA decay, and you know full well that the decay constant is inherently probabilistic, so demands to lock it down to in effect a sufficient cluster of conditions that would force decay of a given U atom in a given interval is a case of distractive side issue. Necessary causal factors are causal factors, and circumstances sufficient to set up probabilistic behavior patterns are sufficient for that outcome to be reliably present. That is more than enough to remove the underlying likely objection to the principle that what begins to exist or occur has a cause. Consider carefully why you want causeless beginnings vs the alternative of thinking on poss/imposs being and necessary vs contingent being vs non-being and where that points ontologically. And, morally. KF
PS: Mapou, notice that telling reference to every instant above? Time, whatever it is, is a key empirical reality in this world.
KF,
There’s no need to go “meta” here and start questioning my motives. I’m the one proposing the possibility that certain events are uncaused, so it’s my prerogative to choose which types of events would present you with the greatest challenge. I have been talking about single atoms from the start, so I’m not “running away” from anything.
It’s not a distractive side issue, it’s precisely the issue that I raised.
Again, I don’t assume that I can read your mind, and I would appreciate it if you would reciprocate. Whether or not there are causeless events has exactly nothing to do with my views on the existence of God, morality, etc.
And I am aware that many experts believe the example I raised does no harm to causality, while others call it “folk science”, so my mind is not made up yet.
DS, You keep repeating a case which by virtue of having clear even trivial necessary causal factors simply cannot be a-causal. That logically leads to the question why that repetition in the face of adequate answer is so. All I add is that a truly a-causal event would have to have no causal factors of any species. The stochastic case in view is one where sufficient factors are there to set up a population with random variation, and occasionally an event — here, a decay — will happen as the system in view undergoes the stochastic process implicit in having a decay constant. KF
PS: The suggestion of a-causal events is in fact directly connected to views on matters on ontology and morality as well as epistemology. Denial or undermining of causality is serious business.
F/N: Wiki makes some remarks on RA decay:
KF
KF,
I am neither a physicist nor a philosopher, so if I am in error, it’s more likely due to my misunderstanding than to more sinister motives.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the trivial necessary causal factors you’ve given are:
1) The mere presence of uranium atoms
2) Because physics is the way it is
Have I missed anything else? Is that all it takes to show that no event is uncaused?
And incidentally, do you distinguish between absolutely acausal events and events which just have some “uncaused component”, so to speak?
I regard the issue of the existence of uncaused events to be purely an empirical and philosophical question, and am interested only in the truth of the matter, whatever the possible implications elsewhere. If you find connections to ontology and morality, fine, but that’s a separate question.
One more thought before I begin my workday, which I concede may be totally off-base due to my naive understanding of causality, and the principle of sufficient reason (which I assume you must accept, but I’m not sure).
Back to the single uranium atom, again. Let E be the event that it decays between t = 0 and t = 1 seconds.
My original question was, in essence, “What is the sufficient explanation for event E”?
So, is there something wrong with this question? I take it that due to the intrinsic stochasticity of radioactive decay, we can’t answer it. Is that ok? Are there other types of events I should not expect a sufficient explanation for?
DS, the sufficient explanation for observing a decay event is that the U atom has certain instabilities that provide a tendency to decay, with a certain likelihood per unit time, the decay constant. Those propensities are in turn rooted in the issue of stabilising the atomic nucleus by in effect diluting the proton-proton repulsion (an electrical effect, the repulsive force between two protons at ~ 10^-14 m is surprisingly large, ~ 2 N, so it is stability that needs explaining . . . hence the strong force and the diluting effect of neutrons which interact through strong force but are electrically neutral, but beyond Pb, all further nuclides so far are unstable — never mind talk of an island of stability) with sufficient Neutrons, hence the classic belt of stability effect; there are also some effects connected to beta decay and the weak interaction. Ans no U atom, no U atom decay event, period; at “trivial” level. But the issue you actually have is to wish to suggest that there is no cause for RA decay, for which it is clearly a proper answer to highlight that an a-causal event cannot have any causal constraint or input, which includes necessary causal factors. I have pointed out that the rejection of cause has pretty wide-reaching and implausible consequences. KF
PS: In the weak sense that if A is, we can ask and investigate why or how, confidently hoping for a reasonable answer is unobjectionable. In short this is expecting the world to make sense, a foundation to science and general rationality. On this premise we see very rapidly that impossible and possible beings are categories, and cross cutting possibles are contingent and necessary beings. Contingent possible beings are relevant to causality, as they would be in at least one possible world and in a “neighbouring” one, they are not, thus raising the issue of the difference, which points to causes. Serious candidate necessary beings are impossible or possible and if possible actual as embedded in the framework for a world to exist. Such are uncaused, e.g. imagine a world where two-ness does not exist or began or ceases, no such world is possible, and indeed so long as distinct identity exists, two-ness must also exist: W = { A | ~A}. Absent such, we could not even have a conversation.
KF,
To expand, let F be the event that the atom decays between t = 2 and t = 3 seconds.
Isn’t your explanation for F identical to that for E, even though the events are mutually exclusive?
For that matter, don’t E and not-E have the same explanation?
It just strikes me as very strange that every possible outcome of the experiment has exactly the same, supposedly “sufficient” explanation. There’s no accounting for why one outcome occurred rather than another.
DS, more of same. The U atom has a stochastic behaviour which will lead to a finite probability of decay per unit time. The sufficiency of its circumstances sets it up. As for it is a-causal, the presence of necessary causal factors rules that out. KF
I’ll add to my post #52 that a similar criticism is leveled (rightly or wrongly) at theories connected to global warming.
Whatever happens to the climate/weather (it is alleged), global warming will be shown to “explain” it. More hurricanes? It’s due to global warning. Fewer hurricanes? Also due to global warming.
When and if such things occur, they rightly should discredit the theories.
Note to self: never read the Express.