Friday, 25 March 2016

Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism

uantum theory?

Originally Posted by Qatada View Post

I've heard some people say that quantum theory explains that matter can come into existence spontaneously.

Can you tell briefly describe the theory, tell me whether its just hypothesis or based on fact, and how you respond to it?

Jazak Allah khayr.
Selam aleykum
I think this is somewhat of a misconception, and I'm not sure what they are refering to. there's three scientific principles that they might be refering to.

1. Einstein's relativity theory.
According to general relativity, E=mc^2 and by that ratio energy can be transformed into matter and vice versa. Like in an atom bomb, how a part of the matter of an atom is transferred into massive amounts of destructive energy. This isn't creating out of nothing, but merely changing the form of energy. There is always conservation of enrgy, that is the sum total of all energy is always the same. The only thing we can do is manipulate the form that energy has. So for the atom bomb for example, we can change energy in the form of matter, to energy in the form of heat and radiation. So nothing new is created, instead existing energy merely changes forms.

2. Superposition.
Due to the wave-particle duality and due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. We cannot know the exact location of particles. We can only detect particles by letting them interact. But by this process of detection, they have changed position. This is a big restriction in quantum-science. And something we have to take into account in any test or experiment. So rather then expressing the location of particles, in quantum physics we express an area of probabilities. An area that contains all the different places where the particle could be. These areas are calculated by complex mathematical equations based on experiments and chance-calculation. When studying these areas we come across a phenomena called superposition. This principle says that if a particle can be in one position or in another position, then there is also a third alternative where the particle temporarily exists in in both positions. However this doesn't mean that a new particle has come into existence that later disappears again. It is the same particle, which just manifests himself in two locations. What causes this phenomenon however, is yet unknown.

3. Matter and antimatter.
Empty space, or a vacuum isn't really empty. Space is made out of a sort of checkers-board, with negative and positive fields (boxes). If all the negative fields are filled with raw particles, and the positive fields are left open, then the end result is just empty space, a vacuum. If however a positive field also gets a particle, then we can detect that particle as it will manifest himself as "matter". If a negative box does not get a raw particle, this box will manifest himself as "anti-matter". So, if a raw particle changes location from a positive box to a negative box, then to us it will appear as if matter collides with antimatter and disappears. Also, if you could force a raw-particle to move from a negative box to an empty positive box, you would create matter and antimatter by doing so. This however isn't "creating out of nothing". In fact you would be merely manipulating raw particles, to make it seem as though new things come in existence. But this is only appearance. In reality nothing new is created, instead compositions of existing things have merely shifted.
Originally Posted by Qatada View Post
asalam alykum

JazakAllah akhi, can you now explain them points in relation to the origin of the universe, especially with the most focus on point no.2 superposition?
Superpostiion doesn't really have any direct link to the origin of the universe. Basically, all these rules follow the law of conservation of energy, that is no new energy is created, and no old energy is destroyed. Thus we know that none of these three can account for the creation of the universe, because for such a creation you would have to break the law of conservation of energy. The only alternative, is when you believe in an infinite universe, and you see the big bang merely as a dramatical change in the composition of the universe, and not as it's origin. However that theorie faces a whole bunch of scientific and philosophical challenges which make it implausible.

I've heard that quantum theory (or is it hypothesis?)
Most parts of quantum science is theory, only some small parts are still hypothetic since we're still pending on results of experiments.

explains that the universe never needed a begining because quantum explains that time ie past, present and future are irrelevant. I dont understand it much myself but can you comment on what u know about this?
Yes this is true. From an a-temporal, or better yet, an ex-temporal point of view, the past, present and future could have been created instantanious. So the origin of the universe doesn't need to "precede" the big bang. However this still doesn't acount for the existence of that universe. Logic still predicts that something caused it nonetheless.

Originally Posted by Qatada View Post

what is meant when past, present and future are all created together instantaniously? how is that possible scientifically? what do they mean by this? i.e. do they mean that the future of what we're doing today had already been created billions of years ago?
Well consider that time is a dimension, and that this dimension is part of our universe. Things inside the universe traverse trough time, but things outside the universe wouldn't necessaryly do so. That is what I meant by a-temporal or ex-temporal. Outside the dimension of time. It could very plausibly be the case that past present and future were created at once. And that only to us, since we have a subjective point of view, it appears as if past comes "before" future.

also, i know abit about entropy, but can u explain it abit more. does entropy mean that there is only a certain level of useful energy which can be used for the production of new universes, and that this useful energy could soon run out? [how is this possible if u say that energy just changes in state without being destroyed?]
I got this definition for entropy on-line:
A function of thermodynamic variables, as temperature, pressure, or composition, that is a measure of the energy that is not available for work during a thermodynamic process. A closed system evolves toward a state of maximum entropy.
So translation: the amount of entropy is the amount of energy that can no longer be used. that doesn't mean that energy is destroyed, but simply that it has changed into a state where it can no longer be changed back to it's previous state. It appears with our current knowledge impossible for the entropy of a closed system to decrease. In other words, in ever process that happens, every single even in the universe, the entropy increases. Meaning in every process the amount of energy that is no longer useful increases. So yes, if the universe would go on forever, then eventually we'll run out of useful energy. In such a hypothetical future, all energy would be scattered and spread over the vastness of space. All suns/stars burned out, all heat dissipated. Also , I don't know how much energy it would take to form a universe, but I don't think there was ever enough energy in our universe to create a new universe.

how does this rule of entropy apply to the multiverse argument too? And how can that be refuted?
It would apply to the multi-verse in just the same way as the standard universe view. I don't see why it would need further explanation in the multi-verse view. And I don't think the multiverse view should be refuted. It could be true, it could be false, important thing s to keep in mind though is:
1. It doesn't solve the question of existence or negate the anthropic principle
2. It is still a speculative hypothesis.
Originally Posted by Qatada View Post
asalaam alaikum

jazak Allah khayr akhi.

What happens to the energy which isn't useful anymore? you explained that stars are destroyed etc. but can't this energy change to something else which will be useful, since it just changes state? Whats the difference between energy which forms the universe, and energy which isn't useful anymore?
Your representation is a bit off. first of all, some energy is no longer useful for certain processes, that doesn't mean it isn't "used" at all. It also doesn't mean that it's no longer part of teh universe or anything like that. Just look at it like this:
Energy can change states trough certain processes, but some of these processes are only one-way-streets. So eventually, given infinite time, all energy will be "stuck" in a certain state. To simplify the matter with an analogy: you can drop a glass and let it scatter, but you cant rewind the process and "unbreak" a broken glass.
(by the way, there's a very nice short story about this phenomena called "the last question".)

also, about the past, present and future, do you mean that outside the dimensions of this universe - the past, present and future can be percieved and seen?
Wheter or not it can actually be "seen" or "percieved" is not the issue. The issue is, that from a non-subjective point of view, one doesn't necesairly precede the other.

How is this known (does science prove this and how)?
It is a logical conclusion of our understanding of the nature of time and space.

And would this argument be plausible for theists who believe in God by saying that the future is already written and known by God?
Are you asking wheter this concept is compatible with the idea of God knowing the future? Yes; possibly.

I understand now, so would this energy probably cause alot of destruction in the universe? Or would it do something else?
Everything else you said makes sense right now, so jazak Allah khayr :) Well it depends on your perspective. Like with the analogy of the glass. Everything is made out of energy, the matter (glass) that is destructed consists out of energy, the force that destroys it is (kinetic) energy, the sound it makes is energy. So it's a bit odd to ask whether or not "this energy" causes allot of destruction. Which energy are you refering to? For example, if the sun would burn up; the biggest problem is not the state of entropy, but rather the lack of light and heat. A universe were all the stars have gone out would be very dark and cold. Another, perhaps even better analogy: you can burn up a piece of wood for warmth, but you can't un-burn the ashes. So in other words the problem of entropy is not that systems with high entropy are destructive, but rather simply that we have no use for them.

As for the relation to the infinite history. Those who claim that the universe has always existed, would have to explain why we aren't already in a state where all entropy is maximised.
here's that short story btw:
The Last Question -- Isaac Asimov

By AbdulFattah

No comments:

Post a Comment