Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?

Martha wrote:
I do not hold to the Big Bang theory, therefore I am constantly arguing
with various BB advocates on the internet.

When I say "the BB is incoherent, if the singularity exploded, there
must be a reason..."

Several comments:
1. Nothing "exploded" in the big bang. The increase in spatial size of
the universe is not something that was caused by some kind of matter
exploding *in* space. That is a common but mistaken notion caused by
popularizations trying to make something more accessible than it really
is.
2. You are taking the strictly deterministic position that *everything*
that happens has a definite and reproducible cause. This notion was
alive and kicking and in fact dominant in the 19th century. However,
quantum mechanics and its success at describing real observations
(where a deterministic model *fails*) forced a reconsideration of this
basic assumption in the early 20th century. It was a point of serious
debate among physicists for decades, and experiments were designed to
once-and-for-all distinguish whether the world is strictly
deterministic or has a nondeterministic element. To some folks'
surprise and chagrin, the *experimental* answer is the latter. So, no,
there doesn't have to be a deterministic cause for everything that
happens.
3. It is known that the laws of physics as we presently understand them
only work correctly in a domain that starts a short time *after* the
Big Bang. We don't know what the laws of physics were before that
transition point, let alone at the Big Bang itself. Therefore it does
no good to try to extrapolate what we know from the universe *today* to
deduce what must have happened or been in force then. It simply is not
true that what is trustworthy in our universe can be assumed to be
trustworthy then.

PD


they inevitably respond with

"no, Heissenberg's Principle of Uncertainty in quantum mechanics proves
that events can occur without cause, such as virtual particles which
appear out of nothing, so the causeless expansion of the BB is not
incoherent."
===============

My problem with QM at this point is it's refusal to entertain the
otherwise trusty hypothesis that the event occured due to a cause, but
one which we presently cannot detect. Doesn't this popular position in
QM, when carried to it's logical conclusion, make the ridiculous claim
that no matter what discoveries we might make at any time in the
future, we will NEVER be able to find the cause of a virtual particle
appearing, for example, because it's appearence was in fact,
causeless." ?

If Quantum Theorists are good scientists, then shouldn't we expect them
to abide by the time-honored rule that no scientific discovery results
in established absolute facts? If so, then why do BB theorists,
particularly of the Christian sort, act as if "something from nothing"
and "causless events" were beyond rebuttal?

But if we all must adhere to the truth that no scientific advancement
can result in absolute knowledge, but that science is a self-correcting
enterprise, and that what we accept today as a good theory, might be
tossed out the window tomorrow, then why do most BB supporters abandon
this objectivity and rely on current QT as if it was as factual as the
sun on a cloudless day at noon?

.

Loading