Faith Well Grounded

OK, I know I said that part three of the discussion on the double-standard between science and theology was next-- and I promise the blog concerning the Big Bang Theory is forthcoming. But I'm knee-deep in a very interesting read on all of these related subjects and I just wanted to jot down a stray point or two.

Quantum Electrodynamics.

To anyone who has endeavored in the cosmological side of apologetics in discussion with skeptics, the phrase "quantum physics" will invariably come up. The apologist tries hard to rely on logic and reason-- specifically cause and effect as they relate to the need for a sufficient first cause. "Quantum physics" is used to side-step such needs. There seems the expectation that the words themselves bypass any logic and reason we may have subscribed to before such theoretical physics cleared them away for us.

Well I say that it's high time the Christian Apologist removes his tail from between his legs and has an honest look at this discipline.

I'm quoting again from "The Edges of Science: Crossing the Boundary from Physics to Metaphysics, by Richard Morris (the interesting read I mentioned above). I realize that I'm relying heavily on this book of late, and I propose anyone who is interested in an honest look at the state of modern science-- as told by a PhD in theoretical physics-- reads it too.

Now, on to the stray point or two...

Quantum Electrodynamics. Morris states on p 23 of the book that QED is based on two rather simple concepts (and I quote):

1. Forces are transmitted by particles.
2. These particles can pop into existence out of nothing, and then disappear again after the force has been transmitted.

Wow. We really do have creation from truly nothing in quantum physics. My cosmological argument for God has been doomed from the start!

He goes on to explain Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle as it relates to subatomic particles (i.e. that it is impossible to know the position and momentum simultaneosly), and then further explains how this particle creation ex nihilo is possible. On p 24 he states:

The uncertainty principle implies that particles can come into existence for short periods of time even when there is not enough energy to create them. In effect, they are created from uncertainties in energy. One could say that they briefly "borrow" the energy required for their creation, and then, a short time later, they pay the "debt" back and disappear again.

What exactly is this "nothing" that can loan energy? The second premise of QED is that particles spring up from nothing. But now we find this is a "nothing" that has something, does something, and then takes something in return. This is indeed an odd sort of nothing. In fact, Morris makes this "nothing" an even stranger sort on p 25, when he states:

In modern physics, there is no such thing as "nothing". Even in a perfect vacuum, pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created and distroyed. The existence of these particles is no mathematical fiction. Though they cannot be directly observed, the effects that they create are quite real.(Emphasis mine)

So, we have in quantum physics this odd form of "nothing" that has energy to give and take, and that modern physics says doesn't exist.

Logic such as this in my computer programs are called bugs. :)

Now, I don't want to misrepresent the intentions of the theoretical scientists. I understand the context in which this "nothing" is being described, and I highly respect the late Mr. Morris. He had an odd penchant for speaking frankly concerning whether all of this should be classified as science. My point in defining this "nothing" as so odd is in the true context of "nothing" when these theories are used to try and cast aside the need for a sufficient uncaused cause.

If the skeptic is truly intent on using quantum physics to allow a true Universe ex nihilo, he should come to grips with exactly what this "nothing" would be. It would not be within the framework of an existing "something". There would be no energy to loan. Truly nothing to be paid back. Nothing in which the virtual particles could spring forth from or into. It would be the sort of "nothing" which we can not even wrap our minds around.

Be blessed...

custom-pager custom-pager-1 custom-pager-blog