Natural Order and Science

[I_am_not_mafia]

Quote mining and deliberately mangled up to make it look like his own argument. I've reported him.

For example, in the electric field when two electrons approach each other, their charges create a disturbance in the electromagnetic field. This disturbance pushes them apart and their paths bent outwards. That also work if an electron and a positron approach each other however, the disturbance in this case similar in type but different in details with the result that the oppositely charged electron and positron are attracted to each other. Their paths are bent inwards.

http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-an...-are-they/

The word "particle" is a poor conceptual description that only makes any sense in the jargon of perturbative quantum field theory (pQFT). I think that people who are not trained in pQFT should consider the word "virtual" to correspond to the excitation's particle-ness. It is not really a particle in any meaningful sense of the word. But it does correspond to something that exists for some short time.

https://m.reddit.com/r/askscience/commen...ly_proven/

In fact, what we call a particle is a nice regular ripple in a field one that can travel smoothly and effortlessly through space. This so called Virtual Particle is a disturbance in a field that would never be found on its own. It does not have energy to become a well formed ripple moving through space. This kind of disturbance will decay or break apart once its cause is gone.

http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-an...-are-they/
https://www.quora.com/Why-should-ones-co...-particles

In the Quantum Field Theory view, actual particles are viewed as being detectable excitations of underlying Quantum Fields.
Virtual Particles are also viewed as excitations of the underlying fields, but appear only as forces, not as detectable particles. They are "temporary" in the sense that they appear in calculations, but are not detected as single particles. Thus, in mathematical terms, they never appear as indices to the scattering matrix, which is to say, they never appear as the observable inputs and outputs of the physical process being modelled.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

The Standard Model:
Standard Model is made of all stable Fermions. If we add the excited state versions of these Fermions, we get the full view. All space is filled with matter fields. They can spawn Fermion particles as waves. This includes all Leptons and Quarks. These particles carry one or more charges. Colour Charge, Electromagnetic Charge, and Weak Hyper Charge. Particles with a charge filled space around them with a force field. They can spawn force particles when excited by particles that carry that charge.

http://howfarawayisit.com/wp-content/upl...-Boson.pdf

According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, nothing in the Universe (i.e., matter or energy) can pop into existence from nothing. All of the scientific evidence points to that conclusion.

Energy could not have popped into existence without violating the First Law of Thermodynamics. So in reality, when scientists argue that quantum mechanics creates something from nothing, they do not really mean “nothing.” The problem of how everything got here is still present. The matter generated in quantum theory is from a vacuum that is not void.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apconten...ticle=4584

But what if quantum theory could allow for spontaneous generation at the quantum level? What if the First Law of Thermodynamics does not apply at the unobservable molecular world of quantum mechanics but only to the macroscopic world that we can actually see? Even if that were the case (and there is no conclusive evidence to support the contention that there are any exceptions whatsoever to the First Law of Thermodynamics, according to the Big Bang model) the quantum level cosmic egg eventually became macroscopic through expansion or inflation. Such an event would have been the equivalent of a breach of the First Law, even under such a speculative definition.

But is not it true that one usually assumes that the current laws of physics did not apply at the beginning? Assumptions must be reasonable. What evidence could be used to back such a grandiose assumption? And again, who would have written the laws at the moment they became viable? And further, if the laws of physics broke down at the beginning, one cannot use quantum law to bring about matter, which is precisely what the quantum fluctuation theory attempts to do.

Conclusion
Can quantum mechanics create Universes from nothing? No!

Quantum particle generation requires pre-existing energy—a far cry from nothing.

Tiny quantum particles fluctuating—bouncing around—is one thing. The creation of the entire Universe through a quantum fluctuation? That’s another.

One who wishes to avoid acknowledging the existence of God should be expected to do almost anything to deny it. Reason will be thrown aside, and acceptance of far-fetched theories—theories that are so speculative that they belong in the fiction section of the library along with the The Wizard of Oz—will be latched onto as fact.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apconten...ticle=4584