Pushkin, I’m pretty sure I know what you read.
Do a Google for “Big Bang” and “vacuum fluctuation”.
Okay, folks, this isn’t correct either. Particles and antiparticles both have energy (mass). This is why the annihilation of a positron with an electron produces a big honkin’ gamma ray photon. Zero-sum energy is not what’s going on during the creation of virtual particles.
I fear that a little quicky summary of quantum electrodynamics is in order here, as told to me by my undergraduate physics prof.
Under quantum electrodynamics, it is possible to violate the otherwise universal law of mass-energy conservation, provided that the amount of mass-energy created, multiplied by the length of time for which the violation exists (before the virtual particles reach their destination and disappear), is less than Planck’s constant (6.626 x 10[sup]-34[/sup] Joule-seconds). The law of conservation of momentum, however, may not be violated for any amount of time, and therefore all virtual particles must be created in pairs having equal and opposite momenta.
When two like-charged particles repel each other, what they’re really doing is exchanging virtual photons. Each particle sends virtual photons to the other. When the virtual photon intersects the other particle, it ends its virtual lifetime; however, in so doing, it has transferred its momentum to the recipient particle, which nudges the particle slightly. Since both particles send equal types and numbers of virtual photons to each other (so as not to violate the conservation of momentum), both are nudged away from each other by an equal amount of force. This is the mechanism behind electrostatic repulsion. And since the energy of the virtual photons times their duration must be less than Planck’s constant, the travel times of the virtual photons between the two charged particles limits their maximum energy. The momentum of a photon (virtual or otherwise) is directly proportional to its energy. Therefore, the closer two charged particles are to one another, the “heavier” the virtual photons are allowed to be (their travel times will be lower, so they can have more energy), and the stronger the force they will exert, which is why the strength of electrostatic repulsion falls off with the distance separating the charged particles.
This process is not to be confused with the more conventional process of the pair-creation of matter and antimatter (e.g. positrons and electrons). The pair-creation process requires initial energy to come from somewhere, e.g. a big honkin’ non-virtual gamma ray photon. When big enough a gamma ray photon passes really really close to a nucleus, it can transform into a positron and an electron. The gamma ray photon must start with enough energy to account for both the mass of the positron and the mass of the electron (via good ol’ E=mc[sup]2[/sup]) or else pair creation will not happen.
I forgot to add:
The law of conservation of electric charge may not be violated either. Therefore, all virtual particles must also be created in pairs having equal and opposite charge. (Photons aren’t charged, and so don’t have to worry about this little snag, but all quarks and all Fermionic leptons are charged. If the virtual particles are around for a short enough time, they can have enough energy to be things like positrons and electrons, which are charged, so I thought I’d mention it.)
JasonFin wrote:
The problem is that the mechanism must have existed in a context of nonexistence, which is impossible. Or else, it must have existed eternally, which is likewise impossible. (Please see prior posts for reasons why.)
Materialism holds that “physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter”.
Once again, there is neither any logic nor any falsifiable experiment that will support either a temporal or an eternal universe within those confines.
Apos wrote:
A simple excluded middle requires that the mechanism be supernatural. Since the mechanism cannot be natural, it must be not natural.
It has nothing to do with “nothing’s mechanism” since the mechanism is not bound by materialist constraints. Do not conflate a natural universe with a supernatural one. Neither is a subset of the other. They are definitively ablative.
You are employing the rhetorical tactic of exaggeration. First, we have not had many such discussions. I’ve been here three years, and you arrived only a few months ago. Second, if any person is going to demand that words be defined, then he ought to accede to the same demand, else he holds a double standard. Third, I don’t think I ever asked you to define “is”.
When what a person is talking about is not clear to me, I will ask for a definition. But where we differ is that I will not use the excuse that I still don’t get it when he has defined his terms forty ways from Sunday in order to avoid debating an issue or conceding a point.
And that is exactly a part of the reason why I say that materialism is among the most mystical of philosophies. We may speak of nothing, say the materialists, in a genitive case whether it makes sense or not. Else, we may simply leave it understood that the case is genitive.
Thus, we will not say that something comes from nothing, which is nonsense; rather, we will simply say that something comes. When asked “from what?”, we will adopt a Zen attitude, raise an eyebrow to indicate wisdom, and reply simply “there is no from, Grasshopper.”
That’s my point exactly. The fact that we are observers contradicts an eternal universe; therefore, it isn’t. But neither is it temporal, at least not materialistically.
Because definitively, the supernatural is not in any way bound by natural laws.
To quote you, “Not exactly the hardest thing to concieve (sic)”. 
You do not have to toss in “God”, but you cannot escape tossing in “supernatural”. They are not necessarily the same.
JohnClay wrote:
If such an entity exists, then it is supernatural. There cannot be a natural eternal thing.
It so happens that I do, but that belief is not related to this discussion. Logic compels me to accept that the universe has a supernatural origin. Beyond that, it is only my personal experience that has convinced me of the Agency.
From God’s eternal frame of reference, these three things are all true at once, simultaneously: (1) the universe has not yet begun; (2) the universe is ongoing; and (3) the universe is finished.
I notice that I missed addressing this from JasonFin:
Actually, all of our experiences come from within our brains. And all of our experiences are unique and subjective. No two people have ever observed the same event in the same way from the same place at the same time.
But every experience in the universe is a tautology. We experience pieces of the universe (stars, planets, people) with pieces of the universe (eyes, noses, ears). Every experience is infinitely redundant.
If I were to define the universe, I would define it as a probability field. For a potential to exist, there must be something that exists. If there is nothing, there is no potential either. Something that has existed eternally is supernatural, and is free from thermodynamics laws. The universe is not free from thermodynamic laws, and therefore is not supernatural.
The term, mechanism, as used here means “the fundamental physical or chemical processes involved in or responsible for an action, reaction, or other natural phenomenon”. Natural selection, for example, is the mechanism of evolution. Statistical probability is the mechanism of particle emission.
The whole of science is concerned with finding mechanisms for natural phenomena and events. Inasmuch as the universe is tautological, and is therefore defined by its contents, there had to be a process by which it came to be, even if that process is the mere appearance of a singularity (or quantum flux).
If that appearance is the first event (and I’m not talking about a “cause” but a process), and therefore the universe is temporal, then before it there was nothing. In fact, there wasn’t even a “before”. That means that there is no natural mechanism to account for the appearance. There was no statistical probability. There was no potential. There was nothing.
And yet, something happened. There was a process of appearing, or banging, or whatever you believe the first event to be. And it came from nothing. (If it didn’t, then it is eternal.)
There is no natural mechanism for making something out of nothing. Making anything at all intrinsically implies a mechanism at work. And nothingness implies the absence of a mechanism. Therefore, nothing can have happened.
But it did.
If we accept that something can not come from nothing (nothing in the literal sense, not the scientific nothing where ‘energy levels = nothing’), then something must have existed forever, outside of space-time. It would have to be infinite, unlimited and immaterial. Whatever this ‘force’ was, it caused a finite, limited and materialistic universe to come in to existence.
This is the theory that I subscribe to.
And a sensible one at that.
Could you explain your reasoning here? Or is it just so because you say so?
Libertarian:
Hmmmm… one of the meanings for supernatural is “of or relating to existence outside the natural world”. Perhaps the behaviour of quantum particles in quantum computers and the two slit experiment would also be called “supernatural” since many physicists believe that it involves alternate histories interacting. Do you think that could be called “supernatural”? (Assuming that alternative histories really are interacting)
Maybe the timeless set of all alternate histories (Platonia) is a “supernatural” entity. Do you see any problems with the Platonia explanation?
I guess.
Fair enough. The Creator revealed himself to you. But anyway, I think that the universe doesn’t have an intelligent origin - i.e. I don’t think it was made by an eternally existing personality who is infinitely just and good and wise. It may have had a “supernatural” origin - according to your definition.
That means that God didn’t have time to weigh up his decisions - his decisions about creation, etc, were eternally inevitable… that would mean God has no free will. It also means that God is eternally aware of the outcome of our actions and his so in making the universe he was already aware of all those who would eternally go to hell - since the future was happening already… so God already knew everyone’s future so he and everyone is actually predestined… well that’s enough off-topic thoughts for now.
How about the universe? It’s natural and eternal.
Huh? That’s what’s been under discussion these last dozen or so posts!
Libertarian is right. As I understand it, the universe in its entirety was preceded by nothing (or, more accurately, simply was not preceded, not even by ‘nothing’) and it had no cause.
The fun part–the argument I like to throw out for consideration–is that any consideration of “events” is nothing more than an arbitrary division of the one event called “universe” into two (or more) parts, one preceding the other, and then claiming that the first caused the other. Since the event called “universe” had no cause, all causality is an illusion. Or, rather, it “goes with” a way of seeing things as divided up into events, within which framework it is logical and highly useful. But that that way of seeing things is a local oversimplification (like Newtonian physics) rather than being “reality”.
You can make a similar case for any consideration of “entities” or “objects”.
Epimetheus wrote:
As I’ve already explained, if the universe is infinitely old (since it ostensibly would contain the natural eternal thing) then you and I ought not to be here as observers, since entropy tends to increase over time, and after an infinite amount of time would almost certainly be one hundred percent.
JohnClay
No. Quantum particles are natural phenomena. Just because they might act weird does not mean they are supernatural. They behave in accordance with a statistical probability mechanism.
There is no reason to guess. If you’re alive, then there is energy available to do work.
That’s an ignoratio elenchi fallacy.
You are looking at the three things as Or’ed when in fact they are And’ed. It is true that, from God’s perspective, (1) time has finished. However, it is equally true that, for Him, (2) time is ongoing. Finally, it is no less true that, for Him, (3) time has not yet begun.
In the context of truth (2), which is just as true as truths (1) and (3), God may exercise His freewill.
Robert wrote:
Then how is there energy available to do work?
Hunter wrote:
Exactly.
That’s why here, we’re not talking about causality but about mechanisms. The quantum mechanism, statistical probability, cannot apply without a probability field. “Nothing” has no potential for probabilities.
Nothing can certainly come from nothing:
Here’s a link that’s not broken.
You’re mixing them up. The annihilation of virtual particles does not produce a gamma ray it simply returns the borrowed energy to the universe. in virtual particle pair production we’re not talking about real positrons and electrons , and it is a zero sum game.
Of course, zero energy is not nothing.
As Ultrafilter once said, convincing me to change my mind and concede to him a particular point, if something is measured as zero, then it has the attribute of zero measure. Nonexistent things have no attributes.
Yes, but you could just as easily say that if something is measured as nothing then it has the attribute of nothing. And nonexistent things have no attributes. I think both statements are somewhat nebulous, and smack of sophistry.
However, what I don’t see is how there could be a quantum fluctuation without some substrate in which QM could operate.
Even the statement that the energy of the universe is zero is false because if this were true then there could be no universe. You cannot have a classical vacuum (space-time absent mass and energy.) If you did you would know its exact energy over time (zero), which violates the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
I was referring to Apos’s implied assertion that it is a zero-sum game because each particle is created with a corresponding antiparticle. The implication was that regular particles had positive mass-energy while antiparticles had negative mass-energy. This is incorrect; both particles and antiparticles have positive mass-energy.
Also, when I said that “Zero-sum energy is not what’s going on during the creation of virtual particles,” I meant that energy is not conserved at the moment of virtual particle creation. Energy is in fact created. However, that same amount of energy is destroyed (without giving off any gamma rays) when the virtual particles end their lifetimes. Note that pairs of virtual particles exchanged in the transmission of electrostatic forces do not end their lifetimes by colliding with each other and annihilating; they end their lifetimes when they intersect the particle they’re imparting a force to.