optimist

Well here I'll just put up the text from that site. This is not by me but Simon Hooks, Physics A-Level Student, Gosport, UK -

"Given the First Law of Thermodynamics: that you can't get something from nothing. Where did all the stuff in the universe come from and how is it still a law if it was once broken?"

In the macroscopic world, the domain ‘classical’ physics, the laws of thermodynamics are, and have always been, true.

However, on the quantum scale, it is a very different matter. Hiesenberg’s uncertainty states that there will always be a level of uncertainty when you try to make measurements of particles and other quantum scale occurrences. You can never know everything about a particle’s position and motion at any one time. This is an intrinsic uncertainty, it is not due to limitations on our measuring devices. This uncertainty of the energy of anything of the Planck scale is size allows some very bizarre phenomena to occur.

To us, vacuums appear to contain nothing at all. But, it you were to look closely, very, very closely (to the order of 10^-35m), space is actually a foaming mass of quantum activity. This quantum foam is made of particles and micro-black holes popping in and out of existence, apparently in contravention of the second law of thermodynamics, they appear out of nothing with energy, then disappear again just as quickly. The key to this is the uncertainty principle. The disturbance is permitted to ‘borrow’ a tiny amount of energy and exist for a very short length of time, and then it must return the energy and disappear again. But, the more energy it borrows, the less time it is allowed to exist. These ‘temporary’ particles, called virtual particles, are not just theoretical, they have been proven to have real effects on scientific experiment.

The only thing that prevents these virtual particles from coming into permanent existence is a lack of energy. However, it is possible to artificially supply energy to the particles therefore promoting them into reality. This could be done in a lab by creating very strong electric fields, but these fields are very difficult to create. On the other hand, intense gravitational fields could also do the job.

It is possible that during the big bang, black holes the size of a nucleus popped into existence due to the quantum foam. The interesting thing is that the smaller a black hole is, the more strongly space-time is distorted around it and distortions in space-time imply the existence of very strong gravitational fields. Stephen Hawking has shown that the gravitational field around such a hole would give enough energy to the quantum foam to promote the particles into real existence. Calculations show that in the big bang the initial extreme conditions would also have been enough to create real particles out of the gravitational energy of the rapidly expanding universe.

And as for how the universe actually came into being itself, it is believed that also in the quantum foam, virtual space-time bubbles also continually pop in and out of existence, like virtual particles, only to disappear again. However, it is possible that one of these space-time bubbles, which is actually an unimaginably small universe, could avoid rapidly disappearing again and be promoted to a full size universe, such as ours. However, for this to work some sort of repulsive force is needed, a sort of anti-gravity. Many scientists believe in the existence of such a force at the time of the creation of the universe, but as I’ve answered your question and that’s a whole other topic, I think I’ll stop before I go off on too much of a tangent.

To summarise, due to the uncertainty principle, particles and space-time bubbles continually pop in and out of existence for short times depending on their energy, without breaking the law of conservation of energy as they dissapear again. Think of it like an accountant (the universe) who balances the books at the end of every month. If someone (a virtual particle) was to borrow some money on the 4th day of the month (pop into existence)then put it back on the 8th day,(disappear again) then as far as the bookkeeper would know, nothing had gone amiss and no rules (or laws) had been broken. If a particle is to come into complete and real existence, it must take its energy from somewhere, such as a gravitational field.

graden1

<a href="http://www.sciam.com/2002/0302issue/0302scicit6.html" target="_blank">Scientific American March 02</a>

optimist

graden1 - that is one possible answer. Not the answer. Not that it is not a respectable one, but always keep in mind that the speculations about the source of the Big Bang (if there was one) is rather speculative right now. Keep all the possible explanations at hand, do not pick one and hold it as true. The Big Bang happened, that can stand alone as a theory, but why or how it happened is on shaky ground. There is a few respectable theories about that which should all be kept around. Same with evolution, it happened. The theories saying exactly how (punctuated equilibrium or gradual steps) may need to all be kept for a while.

Feynman has a beautiful discussion of this in "The Character of Physical Law" which is a GREAT, short book which I recommend to you all. The last chapter, 'Making New Laws,' especially. The book covers the need to keep more then one explanation handy, it covers quantum physics and the two-slit experiment, and that last chapter helps you understand how science itself works. A grossly misunderstood thing by the public. Before a creationist engages in talking about evolution, or anyone, they should read something about the nature of science itself first.

[ March 02, 2002: Message edited by: optimist ]</p>

optimist

ken1burton:
"Big Bang? How about a Big Spin before the Big Bang so the Universe ends up Disk shape."

The universe is not a "Disk shape." The galaxy is, but not the universe. A sphere would work for the universe I believe.

"Reproduction whould have to also get there before death."

I think the anwser to this is that many life forms surely died out because they could not reproduce. Eventually one came along that could self reproduce.

"Simple egg division is what is used when we buy one egg, put it in the refrig and never need to get any more eggs, they just double by themselves."

What? There are plenty of life forms that self reproduce, trees for example do not need to have sex. Sex evolved much later so that genes could mix and a species could become more diverse and better its chances of survival.


"God might have Evolved. What makes up a Spiritual being? If we had that answer, we might be able to figure where the Creator came from."

If you don't think humans could evolve then how do you think a god could evolve?

"Consider all the things a life form would need to survive, many complex systems are needed, and they are needed on day one."

Humans would need these complex systems on day one, but humans did not evolve on day one. Simple life forms that gained their energy/food from the sun evolved day one.

Ken, why did I even respond to you? <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

ken1burton

Life is not simple. Not a single cell, Not one with billions of cells.

Since when does light and energy provide food for a living cell? Plants use those, But they also have a complex system to create useable food. Noting that could have evolved with this system intact.

The reason I spoke of simple cell division is because that is used by science as an explination for the simplisity of life. A cell dividing into 2 cells both able to survive is not something that would have just evolved in a cell. That is a complex design.

The reason a God might evolve where a Human, or life as we know it on earth, Single cell, is because He could be an energy force that somehow became able to think.

Energy does not need to eat, to reproduce because death waits for it. etc. I could call life a energy force, But we need this physical body to generate the energy to keep ourselves alive.

If evolution was possible, the Scientists would have created life in the Lab long ago.

Do not use the Creation story as Life being created by God on earth. That is not what it is, it is a similitude for the day of the cross as 7 days. "Let there be light" is Jesus telling the Disciples truth as the day starts which is made as 7 days by Isaiah 30:26.

Time is endless in both directions, God used a similitude for taking a day out of time, so the old world ended, and a new world began, and "He declareth the end from the beginning." When Jesus said "It is finished, the old world ended, and a new world began. The Old world had no beginning, the new world has no end. all similitudes.

Ken

Theophage

Quoted text by ken1burton will appear in bold:

Life is not simple. Not a single cell, Not one with billions of cells.

Here we see the fallacy of equivocation; the equivocated word here is "simple". Clearly a single-celled organism is more simple than an organism with billions of cells. "Simple" and "complex" are not absolute labels but relative ones; X is simple compared to Y, or Y is more complex than X. To say that a single cell is not "simple" begs the question "simple as compared to what?"

Since when does light and energy provide food for a living cell?

For a few billion years, I should imagine. Anybody remember when the first photosynthesizing life is supposed to have appeared?

Plants use those, But they also have a complex system to create useable food.

Yes, their system of photosynthesis is more complex than, say, a blue-green alga. But that would also imply that a blue-green alga's method is "simple" compared to an oak tree. You do realize, Ken, that the chloroplasts in plant cells are the descendants of simpler organisms? That these organisms used a simpler methoed of gaining food from sunlight? Which brings us to our next point:

Noting that could have evolved with this system intact.

It would be more accurate to say "Nothing could have instantly appeared with this system intact." On this, we would both agree. Fortunately for us, evolution neither implies nor requires that systems such as photosynthesis simply appear one day out of nothing.

Perhaps you didn't know that the word "evolve" means "to change", not "appear out of nowhere". More complex systems evolve from simpler systems which in turn evolve from simpler systems. It's not really that hard to grasp...

The reason I spoke of simple cell division is because that is used by science as an explination for the simplisity of life.

Is it? I find it much more probable that you simply don't understand anything about biology, evolution, or science. Don't be ashamed, a shocking number of people don't.

I think it would be more accurate to say that cell division is a simpler method of reproduction than, say, sexual reproduction in mammals. Here we go again with the equivocation of "simple" and "simpler"...

A cell dividing into 2 cells both able to survive is not something that would have just evolved in a cell. That is a complex design.

So you assert. Shall we just take this on your say so, or do you have some sort of supporting argument?

As an argument for the opposition, cell division can be seen as simply the outgrowth of the way that molecules replicate. DNA splits in half, and then each half collects the appropriate nucleotides to reconstruct is missing half. In cell division, this process still happens; the rest of the process is merely an add-on to this primal reproductive method.

The reason a God might evolve where a Human, or life as we know it on earth, Single cell, is because He could be an energy force that somehow became able to think.

Interesting. Note that even in your example, we have something simpler (energy force, non-sentient) changing into something more complex (energy force, sentient). So you agree that such increases in complexity can occur? Good, because they certainly do.

If evolution was possible, the Scientists would have created life in the Lab long ago.

Your statement above is just as absurd as: "If galaxies exist, then scientists would have created galaxies in the lab long ago." Just because a process is physically possible doesn't mean that we can do it.

And just because we cannot do it at a particular point in time does not mean that it can never be done. Consider this alteration of your statment above: "If flight was possible, the Scientists would have flown long ago." Suppose this was said in 1750, would they be right?

Ken, do you even bother to think before you type such nonsense?

MercuryPenguin

Reproduction isn't necessary complex; there are such things as <a href="http://w3.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1990/may09/23124.html" target="_blank">self-reproducing molecules</a>.

Heleilu

Ken, it's nice to see that you're learning Amosian, but remember that the rest of us don't speak it. English from now on, please?

optimist

Thanks for replying Theophage, I had other things to do. Maybe I'll see if there is anything to add later.

"If evolution was possible, the Scientists would have created life in the Lab long ago."

This just struck me as really funny. I don't mean to make fun of anyone, but it is almost like a joke.

Sorry about the "why did I even respond to you?" comment Ken. I had other things to do and a few of your arguements stuck me as absurd and then I felt bad about my use of time.

[ March 02, 2002: Message edited by: optimist ]</p>

graden1

Good point; I posted that link as another alternative to those previously discussed. I think it goes without saying that anything having to do with string theory is speculative, but it's fascinating stuff.

Grady