1. Everything that is created from rearrangement of matter/energy has a cause.
2. The universe was created from nothing.
3. Therefore, The universe must have had a cause.

Clearly, the argument now fails, 3 does not follow even granting premise 1 and 2.

Thanks. So you were asking about virtual particles? Nothing Strassler says seriously conflicts with my explanations above, although I would quibble with some of his terms. In particular, that a free electron is a 'real' particle and virtual particles aren't. Or that a free electron is a 'natural' motion. It's really just a convenient limit of a simplified theory, neither is more or less natural than another.

He's advocating a non-standard usage of terms, which is fine IF one is careful to not introduce new misunderstandings in the public, but the important thing to realize is that this is all just phenomena of the underlying theory (Quantum Field Theory) and 'real' and 'virtual' particles are part of a spectrum. They are like waves on the surface of the ocean: the mechanics of the ocean are the underlying complete theory and the waves are phenomena that result. I'll quote him,

"A particle is not as simple as I have naively described. Even to say a particle like an electron is a ripple purely in the electron field is an approximate statement, and sometimes the fact that it is not exactly true matters."

josh, appoligies about the link. Here it is: http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/

Incidentally, your link to Matt Strassler's blog just goes to a page celebrating its (old) one year birthday. And I note there is another Josh on this very sub-thread. He uses upper case 'J', I'll stick with all lower case.

Hi stevegbrown,

Your bias seems to be towards metaphysical assumptions that aren't well-founded. Gunmen and broken cars and SQUID applications are all real events. I didn't think that was even in need of discussion. But what it could mean to say they are caused requires rather more work.

Re: Prof. Strassler- 'causality' means something specific in physics that isn't the same as the poorly defined metaphysical 'causes' bandied about by Aristotelian-Thomists and their ilk. Causality means, roughly, that an observation at one point in space-time can't affect an observation at another point if it is outside the first point's light cone. Or as some put it 'Information cannot travel faster than the speed of light'. That means that,e.g., IF a photon can only be emitted by an electron THEN one can't be detected at a point farther away from a detected electron than the speed of light permits. What it doesn't do is establish a cause for if and when a photon is actually emitted, or perhaps I should say detected. That's still probabilistic in a modern treatment.

I want to emphasize that there are plenty of contexts in which it is reasonable to talk about this causes that and so on, but if you want to make a compelling argument about the nature of the universe you have to get into the details and then everyday heuristics break down. Aristotle and Thomas just aren't up to the task. Modern QM is a convenient demonstration of that but even in their own time they were mistaken just based on facts available.

Hello Josh, Also, please read the article that I've referred to above. You may be interested to know that according to Prof. Strassler:
"While it is true that one has to be careful in general about assuming that all processes can be described in terms of cause and effect (even before accounting for quantum mechanics), and also true that quantum mechanics is weird, no doubt about it , there is no profound challenge to basic causality in this context. Certainly I do not think you will not find any discussion of challenges to causality from “virtual particles” (i.e. generalized disturbances in fields) in any modern quantum field theory book."

Sorry if my bias is towards reality over a mathematical model.

Next time your car breaks down, don't bother checking under the hood.

Or if you witness someone pointing a gun at a victim and pulling the trigger, you can't tell me that they are an actual assailant.
(forgot, those are macro events)

In case you haven't heard of a SQUID, here is a real-world application using quantum tunneling, sorry, I forgot; can't cause a more accurate image:
http://searchcio-midmarket.techtarget.com/definition/superconducting-quantum-interference-device

(apologies for the sacrasm, couldn't help it, must be my bias)

Let's work from the bottom up this time.

"One last point. Don't give me earnest advice to put down the shovel. That tells me you think I'm full of sh@t and I would think that such a statement is unbecoming any Christian morals I had ever encountered."

>> In fact the hard whack worked like a charm. You have finally constructively engaged the evidence I presented to you a half dozen posts back.

You're welcome.

True Christian charity consists, often, in refusing to acquiesce in dismissive denigration of legitimate, substantive, and documented responses to a given assertion.

Let us recall that this exchange commences with your assertion:

"Radioactive decay has no cause and all measurements show it to be totally random."

It is now conclusively established that this assertion is false, as a matter of multiply-attested, documented scientific fact.

"I have endeavoured to be civil to you"

>>Civility is greatly to be desired, but it is a two-way street. After assorted references to "creationists", "metaphysics", "cold fusion", etc, you have finally engaged the issue.

Good.

"I would have expected you you to do the same"

>> You were reciprocated in accordance with what you offered. I find this works well, when there is at least a ghost of a chance that a more constructive and honest dialogue might result.

In fact this has now occurred, and you are the beneficiary of an acquaintance with that great Russian scientist, the mentor of Belousov and Zhabotinsky, and the *original discoverer* of a potentially world-changing scientific effect.

I have a bit of a sore spot when it comes to great discoverers.

They are, so often, buried beneath the mewlings of drones.

As here:

"Belousov made two attempts to publish his finding, but was rejected on the grounds that he could not explain his results to the satisfaction of the editors of the journals to which he submitted his results. His work was finally published in a less respectable, non-reviewed journal.[1]

Later, in 1961, a graduate student named Anatoly Zhabotinsky rediscovered this reaction sequence;[2] however, the results of these men's work were still not widely disseminated, and were not known in the West until a conference in Prague in 1968."

In other words, Rationalist, two great scientific discoverers were buried by drones, gatekeepers and paycheck-cashers; Belousov eventually left the field altogether, and then got to watch Illya Prigogine waltz into the Nobel Prize decades after the fact.

Grotesque.

All too typical.

"but since you will not, I will henceforth ignore you."

>> It's a bloody good thing you didn't ignore me before you were corrected on your false assertion, and introduced to the great Schnoll, whose results are now being independently reproduced, and whose discovery, should it stand up to the inevitable peer review process now *certain to follow*, will utterly change the world.

Last point:

You mention "less than one per cent", as if this were somehow relevant in any way at all.

It isn't.

Please consider the consequences for science should Kepler have been told he could not publish his work on elliptical orbits, since the orbits departed from circularity by *far less* than 1%

Anyway, the point at issue now fully resolved, I wish you all the best.

Here's a paper that can find no evidence for it.

http://donuts.berkeley.edu/papers/EarthSun.pdf

And here's papers that discuss the issue.

http://web.mit.edu/redingtn/www/netadv/XperDecRat.html

If anyone found conclusive evidence for an external cause (not factors) that would be a Nobel prize. Again, even IF external factors are shown to affect the rate, the effect is small, < 1%, and there ate no indication that these factors cause the decay, only at most shift slightly the rate slightly.

Yes, I do have a Masters in Science and although my specialty was condensed matter physics I can still understand what most of what the authors are saying here. I also know that many experimental results in physics are wrong. I got several papers published by picking off low hanging fruit of other researchers' sloppy experimental procedures and publishing contradictory experimental results. These are cutting edge results and may turn out to be mistaken (as many do) but don't fall into the trap of embracing results just because they may agree with your philosophical or theological dispositions.

One last point. Don't give me earnest advice to put down the shovel. That tells me you think I'm full of sh@t and I would think that such a statement is unbecoming any Christian morals I had ever encountered. I have endeavoured to be civil to you, I would have expected you you to do the same but since you will not, I will henceforth ignore you.