The intrinsic necessity of quantum mechanics

One of my favorite science lecturers is Lawrence Krauss, because he understands the need for science to explain how a universe can arise from nothing without a God. One of the greatest mysteries of the universe is why we have something rather than nothing. Krauss argues that entire universes can arise from nothing because when you combine the laws of quantum mechanics and relativity it tells you that space and time can spontaneously appear where there was previously no space or time. He then goes onto argue that even the laws of physics themselves could be random, and we just happen to live in a universe where the laws of nature provide the right conditions for intelligent life.

If you're paying close attention however, this logic is not entirely correct, and I think Krauss knows it is not correct. Consider a universe consisting of complete nothingness, no space, time, or energy, or even laws. But using simple logic we know that if we have no laws, nothing will ever change, nothing will ever happen. For something to happen we need a law which says things can happen, we need a law which says that space, time, energy, and laws to govern them, can spontaneously appear out of nothingness at random times. That sounds exactly like quantum mechanics to me, QM is all about randomness and things occurring without a preceding cause (aka non-deterministic).

Without the laws of QM you cannot get a bunch of different universes with different laws. Those universes and their laws will only appear from nothingness if there's a law which says that can happen. In summary, what I am saying, is that the laws of QM are intrinsically fundamental to the way the universe works, nothing could exist were it not for the laws of QM and their ability to transcend nothingness. This epiphany has personally helped me to have a much deeper and more intuitive understanding of QM and the randomness associated with it. It really is quite an amazing concept when you really stop and think hard about it, but I find it hard to express in words.

But at the end of the day I'm not sure any of this really answers why we have something rather than nothing. Why is there an intrinsic law to reality which allows things to randomly appear from nothing, it would still make more sense for nothing at all to exist, yet here we are talking about this.

I find issues of origins and cosmology fascinating. As a Christian, I have my own biases as to "why" something exists rather than nothing.

In some ways the question seems irrelevant because we could only be asking it in a universe where it is possible for us to exist. This is one of the problems (if you want to call it that) with the anthropic principle of cosmology, which includes elements of quantum theory. In other words, the probability of finding yourself in a universe compatible with your existence will always be 1.

I swear... every time I try to talk about anything related to quantum physics, I sound a little stoned.

originally posted by: VegHead
...

I swear... every time I try to talk about anything related to quantum physics, I sound a little stoned.

Its my new drug, that's for sure. I picked up Leonard Susskind's Quantum Mechanics a Theoretical Minimum And I've been slowly working my way through it, getting all the math and such. I'm not a physics guy though.

I think what the "shut up and calculate" physics guys don't understand, is how much QM offers us philosophically. Classical science gives us a world of observable truth, that we the observers are outside of. QM gives us a world where our observations effect the world we are observing. The reality is, the latter is more of the world we live in. If I ask the scientific question "What's going on with X the Internet", my Googling and site visiting to find out changes all kinds of things. The visitor statistics on the websites I visits, data in the NSA and Google databases, and on and on. My observations of data on the Internet shape the Internet. QM gives us a philosophical foundation for thinking about a world where reality is shaped by our observations.

a reply to: VegHead

In some ways the question seems irrelevant because we could only be asking it in a universe where it is possible for us to exist. This is one of the problems (if you want to call it that) with the anthropic principle of cosmology, which includes elements of quantum theory. In other words, the probability of finding yourself in a universe compatible with your existence will always be 1.

I don't think you really understood the essence of what I said. The fact we are here in the first place indicates that there are other universes with different laws of physics, most of which cannot support intelligent life. If our universe was the only universe and the laws of physics were the same everywhere, it would be an absolutely insane luck of the draw that the laws just happen to be perfect for supporting intelligent life forms such as ourselves. But what I'm really trying to dig into is the question of why all these universes are able to exist, and what I'm saying is that the core laws of QM never change, they are the one thing that always remains constant and true in any universe, the most fundamental aspect of reality.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I talked to a renowned astrophysicist about the 'multiverse' problem, and how the scientific proposals actually work.

In a nutshell it is not quite correct to say the the laws of physics are different in other universes. The proposal is that in fact the underlying Lagrangian of the quantum fields (in essence the statement of the Standard Model) is the same in all universes. However, in the very earliest moments of each of the Big Bangs, fluctuations in initial conditions and strong self-interaction caused the vacuum fields to interact in different ways and cause spontaneous 'symmetry breaking' which results in different force strengths and particle masses from one universe to another. The consequences on stability of atoms and particle interactions could be quite strong so many practical aspects would be very different, but "in principle" the laws of physics really would be the same in some ways.

This is of course a theoretical proposal only.

If you understand qm that much by intuition alone, tell us why did the big bang take place in the first place
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I think it is a mistake to believe there was ever "nothing". I admit my own mind cant wrap around the idea that there has always been "something" but it is entirely a possibility.

Now if we accept that, we can focus our time on figuring out what it is that has always been. Temperature difference?, Energy? Maybe in all the emptiness there was just two locations in the emptiness that had a difference in temperature even a very tiny difference, and they came together to form the first energy that then caused a chain reaction?

Maybe one nothing was tiny bit warmer than the other nothing and they bumped.

a reply to: mbkennel

Regardless of how the laws form or how different each universe would be, the point is they can't appear from nothing unless the most fundamental rules of the universe say it's possible, and apparently those rules do say it's possible, or else we wouldn't be here. Krauss always talks about how the entire universe can arise from nothing, and he goes to great lengths to define exactly what he means by "nothing". He says it must be a state with no time, no space, no energy, and no laws at all. But if you have absolutely no laws, simple logic should say nothing will ever happen, therefore there must be something intrinsically random about the universe, the same type of randomness which is manifested in quantum mechanics. I guess one could argue that in a state which has no laws, anything is possible, because there are no laws preventing it. Now that is a really mind bending line of logic.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Yes that's true, there must be still some 'law' remaining Back Before Time which governs stuff if there is any sense to be made out of calling it 'Physics'.

The idea as I understand it is that there always was some law (technically the Lagrangian of the Standard Model or however it would be expressed including gravity and thus spacetime), somehow 'for all time', and then there is physical dynamics, real 'integrate the equations of motion' physics which create big bangs and a universe in each, which somehow end up being geometrically disconnected from one to another. Other than the geometrical disconnection, the notion of the various ground states breaking symmetry is roughly akin to separate magnetized domains in a ferromagnet.

a reply to: Nochzwei

Why did any radioactive nucleus decide to decay? Because it could. Meaning that there was an allowed quantum mechanical transition with positive magnitude, and in QM, if it can, it does, every once in a while.

a reply to: mbkennel

in QM, if it can, it does, every once in a while

And if a universe can exist, it shall... assuming such QM laws apply even in the midst of complete nothingness, that is the essence of what I'm getting at.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

ChaoticOrder, since you pointed me to this post, one which I have strong feelings about, I thought I'd resurrect the thread.

I have watched numerous talks by Laurence Krauss, both on YouTube and Netflix... and various places on the internets.

Let me expound on my troubles with a universe from nothing...

1. It may be an axiomatically incorrect assumption to assume "nothing" exists. In the beginning, there may have been "everything" and then we added the space in between. This gets rid of the idea of "creation from nothing" (ex nihilo). You would only have to explain the creation of "distance" or "redistribution", not the creation of "stuff". I see no plausible reason why nothing should exist rather than something. Just looking into space an seeing a lot of emptiness isn't proof of anything. Let's face it, there is a whole lot more there that we don't detect and wavelengths we aren't actively looking at.
2. It is still not understood if "time" came into existence when the universe came into existence. Time may or may not be... umm... "trans-universal". While we can do relativistic calculations with time "t", we still don't know if that weird dimension of time was actually created with space, or if it just... uhh... "harmonizes" with space. Just because two things are coupled doesn't imply that they are inseparable. For instance, what if space grows out of time? It sounds idiotic, granted, but there are numerous ways in which space-time is coupled, but also exist independently, or as an inheritance structure.
3. We are still uncertain if the universe has boundaries. We might be exchanging materials with a connected universe. It would wreak havoc on our laws of conversation, but we make assumptions that there is no point of "exchange" when we develop laws of conservation. For more ideas on universal bounds, see this: Definition of the universe
4. Just because we can't see the cause of quantum events, doesn't mean they don't exist. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle assumes that our methods of measurement inherently interrupt what we are measuring (position and spin of particles in a probability cloud)--which is currently a true statement. If you attempt to measure the location of a basketball by throwing basketballs at it, the quality of information you get back will suck. But if you measure it with a light pulse, you can measure the location, spin, and vector of the basketball. Thus, measuring quantum effects may be a problem of engineering just as much as it is physics. That being said, I doubt we'll have high-resolution subspace scanners anytime soon.
5. Randomness is not a good explanation. If I state, "Random events occur. Anything can happen as a result of random events. The universe is therefore possible."... I really don't think I've explained ANYTHING. You then have to prove everything else. Prove that randomness is both random and that it occurs. Prove that randomness leads to both creation and complexity. Prove that complexity allows for a universe to form. Again, randomness is just a bad explanation. It is equivalent to saying "God/Zeus did it."

Points where I agree:
1. Our universe does, obviously, allow for our type of intelligent life. It's also easy to consider that there is some form of intelligent life that is native to stars, rather than planets. Maybe there are space whales that live among massive gas pockets in space. Life is most likely numerous and diverse, far beyond our planet. And in other variations of a universe, other forms of life would most likely take on different forms, as well. We aren't so much "special", but rather a "special variation". Intelligent life could be as common in universes as fungi is on our planet. Life may be a common "expectation" of universes.
2. Quantum mechanics has gotten us much further in our understanding of the universe. The proof is in the pudding.
3. Tweaking the 20-ish constants of nature would form radically different universes with totally different properties. I don't know if this means that our universe is a unique incarnation that "works", if we're one of many universes, or if that's just how our particular "simulation" was setup (simulated reality theory).

A secondary point:
Human knowledge always seems to expand when we reject "nothing" as an explanation. "That's for God to know, not you." "There's nothing there, don't waste your time on it." etc. Calculus was born because we attempted to explain an infinitely small (infinitesimal distance). Telescopes were sought after because we wanted to understand the things that whirled around in the night's sky, opening up a vast ocean of emptiness that heavenly bodies moved through. Nothingness and randomness are in direct opposition to knowledge. When quantum physicists explain the universe by randomness out of nothingness, they have chosen their religion. I refuse to believe such limitations to knowledge, just as future generations will look back and wonder why we wasted so much time telling people that "random events" created the universe. What crap!

a reply to: ChaoticOrder


My issue with a randomly created universe is Chaos Theory so while we are capable of relating to QM as random there could be order beyond what we comprehend.

One of my favorite science lecturers is Lawrence Krauss, because he understands the need for science to explain how a universe can arise from nothing without a God.

Then Lawrence Krauss is a fool because science isn't about disproving GOD but describing our reality in a language called mathematics. So it doesn't matter if GOD made the universe or not, science describes the creation from observations.

Today, we cannot be 100% certain if the big bang actually occurred much less the existance of multiverses. The background microwave radiation may just be clouds of gas and charged particles that refelect starlight throughout the universe as speculated by a number of astrophysicists including Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alfven. If our universe was created by two branes colliding, it would help explain why the universe is expanding at ever increasing rates. The creation of our universe might still be in a birth state with new spacetime entering our reality even today.

Its an exciting time for scientist that can break through the dogma to see creation with fresh eyes.

a reply to: glend


The issue of the multiverse did not originate from the study of physics.

It has to do with problems related to Chemistry and this in relation to the electron cloud.

In so far as the Big Bang a valid referent is that only a massive explosion could have caused us. Its dissipating and from our perspective very slowly but inherently, that is currently a valid way to look at what has happened.

As far as Branes interacting that would imply perhaps a referent to time line beyond our comprehension, which in and of itself does not discount the conclusion.

a reply to: Kashai

The big bang was not an actual explosion but is thought to be a burst of cosmic inflation as singularities cannot explode. But there is no proof that the universe started with a singularity, only conjecture, that defies the laws of physics (aka magic). Whereas String theory attempts to explain the creation of our universe using the laws of physics.As does Quantum Mechanics here without singularities.

a reply to: glend


One way of looking at it is that the event related to the Big Bang was an event that occurred to space-time. What we refer to matter is essentially a closed system which in and of itself reflects space-time in an altogether way. So effectively a particle is a reflection of what space-time is upon some other scale and in the context of a fractal. perhaps another expression of substance.

a reply to: Kashai

I like your thought processes but new discoveries are finding anomilies *cosmic radiation background, flatness of universe etc) that could eventually put an end to the big bang theory. Without the big bang, what then?

Exciting times I think,

a reply to: glend


The flatness issue could be related to as in an inherent curvature that is beyond our comprehension.

Music break...