What are quantum fluctuations and how could they have led to human life?

[narrator]

Novice question.

Reading more of today's http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/world/9454304/heaven-is-a-fairy-tale-says-physicist-hawking/" , an article on Hawking has this line:

Addressing the question "Why are we here?" he will argue tiny quantum fluctuations in the very early universe sowed the seeds of human life.

Can someone explain what these quantum fluctuations are, and how they could sow such seeds?

Thanks :)

 

[yenchin]

This might help:
http://sphericalcowcompany.blogspot.com/2011/05/we-are-amplified-quantum-fluctuations.html

 

[narrator]

This might help:
http://sphericalcowcompany.blogspot.com/2011/05/we-are-amplified-quantum-fluctuations.html

Thanks yenchin, that helped a lot. :)

The thing which had me wondering, reading your link, was that they suggested that without quantum fluctuations, the universe would have remained homogenous. A bit like the old question of, if God created us then who created God, if quantum fluctuations got the ball rolling for the universe, what got the ball rolling for quantum fluctuations?

 

[cosmik debris]

Thanks yenchin, that helped a lot. :)

The thing which had me wondering, reading your link, was that they suggested that without quantum fluctuations, the universe would have remained homogenous. A bit like the old question of, if God created us then who created God, if quantum fluctuations got the ball rolling for the universe, what got the ball rolling for quantum fluctuations?

Yes, that's always the problem. Why did the Universe start in a low entropy condition? Where did the quantum fluctuation come from? I think Hawking thinks it's just a law of nature, others think that dark energy always exists and that increases the likelihood of a fluctuation. At least it comes from somewhere.

But where does the dark energy come from? Well it could be there from an older Universe that has expanded out of existence.

 

[phinds]

Just so you're clear, Hawking does not claim that God does not exist, he claims that God does not NEED to exist. People who believe in the concept of God can believe that it exists whether it has to or not so there still doesn't need to be any conflict between religion and science.

 

[Chalnoth]

Thanks yenchin, that helped a lot. :)

The thing which had me wondering, reading your link, was that they suggested that without quantum fluctuations, the universe would have remained homogenous. A bit like the old question of, if God created us then who created God, if quantum fluctuations got the ball rolling for the universe, what got the ball rolling for quantum fluctuations?

Quantum fluctuations are a property of physical law. Nothing needs to 'start' them: they simply exist as long as quantum mechanics describes the behavior of our universe.

You might then ask, 'Why these laws instead of some others?' and that it a whole 'nother ballgame. But as long as we accept quantum mechanics, then quantum fluctuations are inevitable.

 

[twofish-quant]

Also note that while Hawking's views on black holes and quantum gravity are likely to be more well informed than the average person, his views on other topics are no better or worse than yours or mine.

 

[narrator]

Just so you're clear, Hawking does not claim that God does not exist, he claims that God does not NEED to exist. People who believe in the concept of God can believe that it exists whether it has to or not so there still doesn't need to be any conflict between religion and science.

Excellently worded clarification.

 

[narrator]

...But as long as we accept quantum mechanics, then quantum fluctuations are inevitable.

Could you suggest a link or some reading? I'd like to understand better the realm of quantum mechanics. (I know, big subject.. lol.) My understanding of it (right or wrong) is basically that it includes string theory, subatomic particles, maybe exotic matter, differences in how energy behaves and some strangely different laws from those of regular physics. Also, I don't know what bits are purely theoretical and how much has been experimentally validated.

 

[Chalnoth]

Yenchin's link is quite good. Unfortunately I don't know of any good popular articles on quantum fluctuations themselves, but you might try Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

 

[narrator]

Yenchin's link is quite good. Unfortunately I don't know of any good popular articles on quantum fluctuations themselves, but you might try Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

Much appreciated :)

 

[phinds]

Quantum fluctuations are a property of physical law. Nothing needs to 'start' them: they simply exist as long as quantum mechanics describes the behavior of our universe.

Which is why Hawking says there doesn't NEED to be a God, but doesn't say that there isn't one (although I also seem to remember reading that he doesn't believe there is one, but that's where his point of view has no more value than anyone else's.

 

[Chalnoth]

Which is why Hawking says there doesn't NEED to be a God, but doesn't say that there isn't one (although I also seem to remember reading that he doesn't believe there is one, but that's where his point of view has no more value than anyone else's.

Well, this is where basic probability comes in: if there is no good reason to believe something is true, then chances are it's false. This is because in general, there are far, far more ways for a positive proposition (e.g. X exists) to be false than true.

 

[phinds]

Well, this is where basic probability comes in: if there is no good reason to believe something is true, then chances are it's false. This is because in general, there are far, far more ways for a positive proposition (e.g. X exists) to be false than true.

I absolutely agree w/ you and think the whole idea of a God is ridiculous anyway, but I try to be fair to Hawking.

 

[narrator]

Which is why Hawking says there doesn't NEED to be a God, but doesn't say that there isn't one (although I also seem to remember reading that he doesn't believe there is one, but that's where his point of view has no more value than anyone else's.

Hawking: "I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark." From the article in my OP.

I think if there is a god, religion doesn't have a handle on it.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Also note that while Hawking's views on black holes and quantum gravity are likely to be more well informed than the average person, his views on other topics are no better or worse than yours or mine.

However this does not mean that Hawking's point about the need for god in the universe's creation isn't valid. I know more than the average person about evolution, if I were to say no god is needed I could easily see people harping "he may know loads about evolution but remember he knows as much about God as the average person!".

 

[phinds]

Hawking: "I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark." From the article in my OP..

Thanks ... I was not aware of that and have been mis-representing what he said. Thanks for setting me straight.

I think if there is a god, religion doesn't have a handle on it.

Yep, I agree, although I really don't see the need for one. Religion evolved out of a completely understandable need by early man to get a handle on things like thunder and lightning that seem super-human and had no cause that they could see or understand, so they made up their own and that devolved down to the Spanish Inquisition.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Yep, I agree, although I really don't see the need for one. Religion evolved out of a completely understandable need by early man to get a handle on things like thunder and lightning that seem super-human and had no cause that they could see or understand, so they made up their own and that devolved down to the Spanish Inquisition.

In addition to this I would say that the concepts of God come out of an anthropomorphizing/animal-morphizing of nature. Human society is centered around intelligence and intention and so people tried to apply that to nature.

 

[Metrocles]

Imagine I am a soldier and I want to shoot an enemy. In order for me to shoot I have to ask permission from the soldier behind me to shoot, but he has also has to ask permission from the soldier behind him to shoot, now imagine this continued forever, in other words an infinite amount of time? Will I ever shoot the enemy? The answers is plain obvious. In the same light an infinite regress of causes for the universe would mean there would be no universe in existence in the first place.

Anyone mind pointing out to a layman the flaw in the above argument?

 

[phinds]

Anyone mind pointing out to a layman the flaw in the above argument?

WHAT arguement? It hypothesizes a silly chain and conflates it to the creation of the universe. Who said there was an infinite chain of cause for the creation of the U? No one here, I'm sure.

 

[George Jones]

This thread is not about the science of cosmology. The thread is now closed.