A Voyage through Stephen Hawking’s Universe, Inevitably Emerging out of Nothing by Physical Law (2)

 

Reflections

 

 

Miracles and their purpose: Miracles, by definition, are exceptions and, as per the Qur’an (54), were performed to establish the veracity of God’s Messengers on empirical grounds for their respective nations. These nations were selected by God, according to His wisdom, to be rewarded or punished (on a prior warning) right in this world. If such a nation or a fraction of it persisted on rejecting God’s message even after witnessing miracles (along with other evidence), it was destroyed or punished through humiliation. On the other hand, if a nation (or a fraction of it) acknowledged God and submitted to the moral standards, it was bestowed with honour and political authority over its rivals. This process was repeated many times in human history so that empirical or historical[1] evidence could be provided for entire mankind for a day on which such judgment will universally take place for everyone. (Ghamidi 2012a, 163-171)The word miracle, however, is often misused by religious people, which is equivalent to shooting oneself in the foot. Francis Collins[2] thus warns: “The only thing that will kill the possibility of miracles more quickly than a committed materialism is the claiming of miracle status for everyday events for which natural explanations are readily at hand.”(Collins 2007)Perhaps, it is misuse of the word miracle that scientists rightly show antipathy to (Lennox 2011, 84). If miracles happened on a daily basis, it is difficult to see what would remain of our scientific inquiry and conviction in the functioning of the universe. If alcohol in the lab were to mysteriously turn into water overnight as the experimenter sleeps, what would become of her experiments? Similarly, if mysterious forces started interfering with our flights from time to time, who would be ready to fly anymore? We know that such miracles do not happen, and it is absurd to think of God, who is also the God of science, to interfere in the universe like this. The Grand Design (TGD) (29-30)refers to Newton’s belief (in what it calls a sort of miracle) that God would have to periodically adjust the orbits of the planets. If Newton were alive, I am sure he would have happily accepted the naiveté of his assumption and would be even more humbled to know that God works in much more sophisticated ways than he discovered through his laws. (For a detailed discussion on science and miracles, see Lennox 2009, 193-206, 2011, 81-95)An issue related to that of God’s intervention in the universe and miracles is that of prayer. Since the issue is of great importance in religious systems, we should also consider what TGD has to say about it.

 

God listening to prayers:

TGD (29)shows resentment to what it calls“the biblical view” that “God not only created the laws but can be appealed to by prayer to make exceptions – to heal the terminally ill, to bring premature ends to droughts, or to reinstate croquet as an Olympic sport.” Later, TGD (87)refers to a biblical account of a war that included a miraculous event. It is mentioned in the book of Joshua[3] (10:13-14): “And the sun and the moon didn’t move until the Israeli army had finished the destruction of its enemies! …So the sun stopped in the heavens and stayed there for almost twenty-four hours! There had never been such a day before, and there has never been another since, when the Lord stopped the sun and moon – all because of the prayer of one man. But the Lord was fighting for Israel.”[4]The narrative implies, according to TGD, that the earth stood still, which according to Newton’s laws means “anything not tied down would have remained in motion at the earth’s original speed.”

Before proceeding, one should consider what prayer is. The Online Oxford Dictionaries website (accessed May 25, 2014)presents a reasonable definition: it is “a solemn request for help or expression of thanks addressed to God or an object of worship.”If I make an earnest request to Bill Gates to grant me one million dollars for free, I know, in principle, he is capable of doing that. But knowing very well that people do not give away such large sums for free, it will be rather foolish of me to make such a request. Similar is the case with God. Religious people know that God is capable of doing anything; therefore, sometimes they make naïve requests, ignoring the fact that God does not fulfil any request which goes against His attributes or the scheme that He has devised for the universe. For example, He will not miraculously change a student’s grade from F to A nor will He appear before us no matter how hard we pray. The latter is equivalent to nullifying His whole scheme in which He has deliberately kept Himself hidden so that people can freely exercise their will to choose between right and wrong, without being overwhelmed by His presence. After physical evolution has furnished our bodies, according to Abrahamic traditions, now a conscious evolution is at work, where only those will “survive” who are morally fit enough to make it to the next stage of life.

Regarding Joshua’s prayer and its fulfilment, the Bible explicates that it was not a normal prayer, but a unique event in the entire history of the universe. Again, in principle, why should it be impossible for an omnipotent God to halt the earth’s rotation and, at the same time, stop everything from flying off? After all, there can be numerous ways, beyond our comprehension, in which God can (and should sometimes) intervene in the system of the universe. Similarly, what can possibly stop God from devising a mechanism that, given certain conditions, if people pray for the drought to end, winds are made to carry the rain clouds towards them? It may sound like fiction, but that is only because we have no idea of the various mechanisms that can be employed by God to intervene in the workings of the universe. A parable may help elaborate this: If we somehow go back to the 17^th century and tell a person living then that people by the end of the 20^th century will be able to see and talk to other people thousands of miles away, that person will most probably laugh in our face (Ghamidi 2012b).

Religious determinism: Briefly, we should also touch upon the idea referred to as religious determinism: because God is omniscience (having knowledge of all future events), it implies that everything is predetermined; hence, it is an illusion that we are free to act according to our will. I do not understand this position because knowing something in advance is totally different than to impose something on someone. If I somehow happen to watch a video of a murder that will take place tomorrow by the murderer’s own will, I do not understand how my mere act of watching the video in advance is equivalent to impeding the freewill of the murderer. Similarly, what God knows in advance is that we, employing our freewill, will act in a certain way tomorrow. No doubt, certain things seem to be predetermined like where one will be born and what skin colour one will have etc. but, in such matters, religion does not hold anyone accountable. (Ghamidi 2013)Next, we will move on to our original question: where do laws come from? 

The origin of laws: When asked where the law of gravity came from in a famous CNN talk show, Larry King Live (10^th Sept. 2012), Stephen Hawking said: “Gravity is a consequence of M-theory, which is the only possible unified theory. It is like saying why is 2 + 2 = 4?” M-theory, according to TGD (8), is a set of mutually coherent theories each of which can be successfully applied in limited range of scenarios; whenever two or more of these theories overlap to predict or describe the same phenomenon, they mutually agree. In TGD (116-118, 140-142, 165, 181), M-theory is claimed to be “the only candidate” for the Theory of Everything: Einstein’s dream of a theory “that would account for every detail of the matter and forces we observe in nature.” In addition to the three space dimensions, M-theory predicts seven more dimensions plus one of time. These extra dimensions, however, are not visible to us because they are highly curled up on a scale too small to be observed. The shape of the seven curled dimensions “determines both the values of physical quantities such as the charge on the electron and the nature of the interactions between elementary particles, that is, the forces of nature.” M-theory “has solutions that allow for many different internal spaces, perhaps as many as 10⁵⁰⁰, which means it allows for 10⁵⁰⁰ different universes, each with its own laws.” TGD (58-59, 135-36)suggests that “every possible version of the universe exists simultaneously” (multiverse)and argues that the idea should be accepted because it originates from the quantum theory that “has passed every experimental test to which it has ever been subjected.”

Despite the highly speculative nature of M-theory and severe criticism of it by top-of-the-line physicists (See: Lennox 2011, 51-56), let us accept it for a moment.

M-theory allowing for 10⁵⁰⁰ universes ≠ Presence of 10⁵⁰⁰ universes: The other day, I was solving a mathematical equation for calculating the concentration of a gas in a liquid, and the equation predicted positive as well as negative concentration of the gas. Any concentration obviously has to be positive, and that was what I was looking for. But what about the negative concentration it predicted? That solution was completely meaningless. Since M-theory is also mathematical, the same applies to it too: merely because “it has solutions that allow for” 10⁵⁰⁰ universes does not necessarily mean that they exist.

Further problems with multiverse: The idea of multiverse is based on one of many interpretations of quantum mechanics (called many-worlds interpretation). Various other interpretations do not support multiverse, and which interpretation to choose seems like a matter of taste. Another problem is that the idea of many universes existing in reality conflicts with another concept that TGD proposes: model-dependent realism. We will present and discuss that under Question 4 and also explore some more aspects of multiverse later. 

M-theory did not create gravity!The equation I employed to calculate the gas concentration did not and could not create the gas; it only predicted its concentration. Similarly, gravity can be an axiom (given) for M-theory, but it – being a powerless abstract theory on paper – obviously could not create gravity (or the so called law of gravity). This point is important because, as we have seen (under Question 1), physicists sometimes give an impression as if theories or laws of physics can bring things into existence. The opposite of this is actually true: laws and theories depend on the prior existence of entities in nature. That is because, as Mumford (2004)has clarified (see the discussion under Question 1), there is nothing in nature as laws. What actually exists are entities with causal powers, which when mutually interact produce regularities and necessities in nature (that people take as law-abiding behaviour). 

Properties and causal powers of entities in the universe might have been moulded as M-theory predicts, i.e., by the shape in which the seven hidden dimensions curled up. The shape, however, did not create the entities themselves, which came already loaded with tendencies to, for example, carry an electric charge. Then, how did the entities come into existence? TGD’s answer is: through the law of gravity, which directly leads us to our next question.

 

3) How could the law of gravity necessitate the whole universe out of nothing?

Spontaneous emergence of the universe out of nothing: TGD (139)suggests that “we are a product of quantum fluctuations in the very early universe.”To understand quantum fluctuations, we first need to understand what a quantum vacuum is, which TGD (113)explains as thus: Quantum physics suggests that there is no such thing in the universe as completely empty space; however, the next closest thing to the empty space is a tiny “speck” of space (a quantum field) in a state of minimum or lowest possible energy. In this state, the space is unstable meaning that within it “particles and fields quiver in and out of existence” on a scale as small as the space between the three quarks that make up a proton. The phenomenon is called vacuum/quantum fluctuations, and the particles spontaneously popping into existence are called virtual particles.[5] TGD (136-137)argues that since the universe started on an extremely tiny scale, it is reasonable to think that it spontaneously emerged like a tiny particle out of a quantum vacuum (or, in other words, out of “nothing”) and then underwent inflationary expansion.

The law of gravity necessitating matter within the universe: TGD (179-181)further explains that “the energy of an isolated body surrounded by empty space is positive,” which means that energy is required to create a body. But energy is a ‘conserved’ (constant) quantity, meaning that it can neither be created nor destroyed – the first law of thermodynamics. So how could the whole universe (with all its matter) be created without violating the first law (i.e., without first creating energy)? First, the energy of a quantum vacuum remains constant in spite of spontaneous materialisation of virtual particles (which may further expand into universes), so no new energy needs to be created for this process. But the crucial question is that, once the universe spontaneously appeared as a virtual particle, how did “isolated bodies of matter” also appear within it without violating the first law? In other words, where did the universe borrow energy from to create particles – the building blocks of light, matter, or anti-matter, all of which have positive energy? TGD suggests that the answer lies in the law of gravity. Since gravity has negative energy, on the scale of the entire universe, “the positive energy of the matter can be balanced by the negative gravitational energy”, which implies that the need of positive energy for a spontaneous creation of all the tiny building blocks of matter was annulled by their negative gravitational energy. So the net energy of the universe, before and after the spontaneous formation of all the matter particles, remains zero (constant) and, therefore, “there is no restriction on the creation of the whole universe. Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing.”Hawking (1998, 129)has explained this phenomenon in his book A Brief History of Time like this:

 

Where did they (10⁸⁰ particles in the universe) all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. (Parentheses mine.)

 

This idea that various forms of positive energy can be cancelled out by the equal amount of negative energy present in the universe is called the zero energy hypothesis, first proposed by Edward P. Tryon in 1973.[6] To summarise this rather detailed discussion in Kaku’s[7](2013)words: “it takes no energy to create a universe.”[8]

Quantum vacuum is manifestly not nothing! First, what is taken as synonymous to‘nothing’ in TGD is actually far from it – it is something: a quantum vacuum. The theoretical cosmologist Lawrence Krauss[9] takes a similar position as that of TGD in his 2012 book A Universe from Nothing. But he is much more explicit on the idea of “nothing.” In one of his talks (2009), hosted by Richard Dawkins, he explained nothing as this: 

 

…Nothing is not nothing anymore in physics. Because of the laws of quantum mechanics and special relativity, on extremely small scales, nothing is really a boiling, bubbling brew of virtual particles that are popping in and out of existence on a time scale so short you can’t see them.

 

Obviously, Krauss is referring to quantum fluctuations here. David Albert,[10] sternly criticised referring to a quantum vacuum as nothing in an article published in The New York Times (2012):

   

Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states – no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems – are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff. The true relativistic-quantum-field-­theoretical equivalent to there not being any physical stuff at all isn’t this or that particular arrangement of the fields – what it is (obviously, and ineluctably, and on the contrary) is the simple absence of the fields![11] The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don’t. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings – if you look at them aright – amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing.

 

Therefore, the correct statement should be a universe out of a quantum vacuum which, to re-stress in Lennox’s (2011, 30)words, is “manifestly not nothing.”

 

Gravity depends for its own existence on matter and the space-time fabric: To free the conclusion[12] of TGD from the misleading view of laws in nature, we should translate it into Mumford’s (2004)view of causal powers at work in the universe (presented under Question 1). Because there is matter with mass (giving it the causal power to cause, so to speak, craters in the space-time fabric) and because there is space-time fabric with its peculiar structure (giving it the power to bend against objects with mass), the co-mingle of pre-existing matter and pre-existing space will result in gravity. But when gravity itself was dependent for its existence on the prior existence of matter and space, then gravity did not and could not create them (Lennox 2011, 31). Also, since gravity is the outcome of matter and space, it could not and did not cause matter and the space-time fabric to create themselves [If it did, then the causation will be turned on its head: the effect (gravity) will be causing the cause (matter and space-time).] Finally, how can anything that we call created create itself without any prior cause and basic ingredient(s)? So, all that gravity does then (assuming that the zero-energy universe hypothesis is correct) is that it equilibrates positive energy present in the universe (within matter) with negative energy. One needs to be careful, however, that zero energy before particles came into existence and zero net-energy after their formation is not the same. Zero might appear the same on paper, but it refers to two totally different scenarios: zero energy before the particles existed means absence of energy, but zero net-energy after their existence means the presence of equal amounts of positive as well as negative energy. Gravity produced negative energy, but it did not produce positive energy required to create matter.

 

 [To be continued…]