Science Forums 2

[Shubee]

Originally Posted by Buffy

If you really wanted to go somewhere with this, I'd strongly recommend throwing out your second and third postulates for now, and simply deal with trying to prove that anything is always possible.

That's fair enough. I shall first summarize the fundamental physics of quantum creationism, which is based on the mathematical proposition that there is no limit to improbability in quantum theory. And I'll also share how I came to understand the fundamentals of this physical theory.

I was taught quantum improbability in high school. My high school physics teacher, Laurence N. Wolfe, explained it to the class. He said there was a very small probability for all the air molecules in the classroom to suddenly all be moving in the direction of the west wall of the room, knocking it down. I instantly recognized the similarity of that belief to the Biblical account of the parting of the Red Sea. My next encounter with the concept of fantastic quantum improbabilities was in the book, Mr. Tompkins in Paperback by the prominent physicist George Gamow. I was deeply impressed by his representation of quantum improbability in that book. Consider this excerpt:

When the clouds cleared, Maud found herself sitting in the same chair she was sitting in before she went into the dining room.

'Holy entropy!' her father shouted, staring bewildered at Mr. Tompkins' highball. 'It's boiling!'

The liquid in the glass was covered with violently bursting bubbles, and a thin cloud of steam was rising slowly toward the ceiling. It was particularly odd, however, that the drink was boiling only in a comparatively small area around the ice cube. The rest of the drink was still quite cold.

‘Think of it!' went on the professor in an awed, trembling voice. ‘Here I was telling you about statistical fluctuations in the law of entropy when we actually see one! By some incredible chance, possibly for the first time since the earth began, the faster molecules have all grouped themselves accidentally on one part of the surface of the water and the water has begun to boil by itself!

In the billions of years to come, we will still, probably, be the only people who ever had the chance to observe this extraordinary phenomenon.' He watched the drink, which was now slowly cooling down. 'What a stroke of luck!' he breathed happily. Maud smiled but said nothing. She did not care to argue with father, but this time she felt sure she knew better than he.

It seems that George Gamow's well-known popularization of modern physics is regarded as an acceptable view of physics. Please note the references from scholarly works: Mr Tompkins in Paperback - Google Book Review.

A review by SCRIPTA MATHEMATICA said, "Science students will find it worth while for it is definitely a good supplement to a modern physics textbook."

A review by SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN said, "Will vastly fascinate the whimsical, and is also entirely scientific."

Presumably therefore, quantum physics is a scientific theory. If we adjoin to quantum physics all of the untestable, far-reaching mathematical implications of quantum physics, would we still have a scientific theory? I believe so.

All the underpinnings of statistical thermodynamics are based on the collective motion of microscopic particles, which is governed by quantum mechanics:

In physics, thermodynamics (from the Greek θερμη, therme, meaning "heat" and δυναμις, dynamis, meaning "power") is the study of the transformation of energy into different forms and its relation to macroscopic variables such as temperature, pressure, and volume. Its underpinnings, based upon statistical predictions of the collective motion of particles from their microscopic behavior, is the field of statistical thermodynamics, a branch of statistical mechanics. -- Thermodynamics.

I believe I am correct in identifying quantum physics as the fundamental physical law upon which all the laws of physical interactions and chemistry may be derived:

Essentially, statistical thermodynamics is an approach to thermodynamics situated upon statistical mechanics, which focuses on the derivation of macroscopic results from first principles. ... The statistical approach is to derive all macroscopic properties (temperature, volume, pressure, energy, entropy, etc.) from the properties of moving constituent particles and the interactions between them (including quantum phenomena). -- Thermodynamics.

I do not want to limit myself to classical thermodynamics because, "From a [classical] thermodynamics perspective, all natural processes are irreversible." --Irreversibility.

Thermodynamics defines the statistical behaviour of large numbers of entities, whose exact behavior is given by more specific laws. Since the fundamental laws of physics are all time-reversible, it can be argued that the irreversibility of thermodynamics must be statistical in nature, that is, that it must be merely highly unlikely, but not impossible, that a system will lower in entropy. --Irreversibility

You asked for clarification. That's fair enough. I believe that I can make the first postulate of quantum creationism clearer and even make it understandable to a general audience. Consider the following easy-to-understand conversation from the 1984 movie Ghostbusters, which I interpret as a spoof on science and pseudo-science:

Dr. Egon Spengler: There's something very important I forgot to tell you.
Dr. Peter Venkman: What?
Dr. Egon Spengler: Don't cross the streams.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Why?
Dr. Egon Spengler: It would be bad.
Dr. Peter Venkman: I'm fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing. What do you mean, "bad"?
Dr. Egon Spengler: Try to imagine all life as you know it ceasing instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.
Dr. Ray Stantz: Total protonic reversal.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Right. That's bad. Okay. All right. Important safety tip. Thanks, Egon.

It really is true that the fantastic improbabilities explained to me by my high school physics teacher and the excerpt that I quoted from George Gamow's book, Mr. Tompkins in Paperback, is well-known and well-accepted physics. Shall we dare think about the far-reaching mathematical implications of quantum physics by taking well-understood conventional physics to its logical conclusion?

Theoretically, a conceivable number of nuclear weapons strategically placed all around the Earth could end all life as we know it, almost instantaneously. I argue that if all the fundamental laws of physics are time-reversible, then it follows mathematically that there is a fantastically small probability for random atoms to rapidly assemble themselves into a great variety of living things in a single day.

I wish to make clear that I'm not under any delusion as to the opinions of the general physics community in regard to my theory. As foretold in prophecy, it's an absolute certainty that many respectable physicists will strongly protest my use of quantum physics in a fun application for which they do not approve:

The Infinite Improbability Drive is a wonderful new method of crossing vast interstellar distances in a mere nothingth of a second, without all that tedious mucking about in hyperspace.

... The principle of generating small amounts of finite improbability were of course well understood — and such generators were often used to break the ice at parties by making all the molecules in the hostess's undergarments leap simultaneously one foot to the left, in accordance with the Theory of Indeterminacy.

Many respectable physicists said that they weren't going to stand for this — partly because it was a debasement of science, but mostly because they didn't get invited to those sort of parties. — Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (1979).

It all boils down to a debate between physicists and mathematicians. As I've said before, there are physicists that believe that the fantastically improbable is impossible. There are mathematicians that believe that even events of zero probability can happen. I take the side of the mathematicians. See A Scientific Theory for Creation.