Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
- From: "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 14 Apr 2006 19:00:04 -0700
Mark VandeWettering wrote:
On 2006-03-21, Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mark VandeWettering wrote:
On 2006-03-09, Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jack Dominey wrote:
In <1139274321.630313.296430@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Jim
Spaza" <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>
Everything that occurs needs a cause. If there is no cause for an
event, then why did the event occur in the first place?
You've got two different mistakes here. The first is that cause and
effect describes how things work in the universe, where time is
unidirectional. It is not clear, even to the very smart people who
work on topics like this, that the universe itself can be considered
an effect.
Are there really scientists who believe that there may not be cause and
effect in this universe? Well, then they need to get out of their
cubicles more often.
If not, then show me something that occurs anywhere in the universe
today without any cause.
Your second mistake is that at the quantum level, many actions are
uncaused. In a sample of a radioactive element, for example, there is
no cause for one particular atom decaying at a particular time.
Are you kidding? Are you really saying that there is no cause for a
radioactive atom to decay?
Yes. He is. To every known test, the decay of a particular atom is
random. That is why they form the heart of some of the strongest random
number generators.
The decay of the atom is NOT random. It is impossible with today's
technology to predict which atom will decay and when. But, the cause
of each type of decay is known. It's not like you have a perfectly
stable atom which just spontaneously decays on a whim.
If you mean that atoms cannot spontaneously turn into sponge cake, then
yes, radioactive decay is not random. Of course, that is not what
reasonably intelligent people mean when they say decay is random.
Oh, so you mean predictability, not cause?
It is misleading to claim that "the cause of each type of decay is
known", and it is just wrong to say that anything like a perfectly
stable atom exists.
Well, I don't mean to say that we know everything about why an atom
decays. I just mean that we know, in general terms, what changes in
atom to cause it to decay. We know that the energy state of the atom
becomes too great. Now, why the energy state increases seems to be a
mystery.
You can read up a bit on this idea at fourmilab's Hotbits website:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbits/how.html
What our Krypton atom stuck on its energy ledge needs is a
loan of energy to escape. Once over the hill, it will gladly
repay its debt with the ample energy it releases as it skids
down the slope into the valley of Rubidium. We could loan
the energy to the nucleus by hitting it with a gamma ray,
but thanks to the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg, that
isn't necessary! The nucleus can, in effect, borrow the
energy from the vacuum, momentarily violating the law of
conservation of energy, and then, from the energy released
by the decay, repay the loan before the conservation cops
arrive.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle provides, described in
very broad brushstrokes to avoid getting bogged down in
detail, that while any given physical quantity: the position
of a particle for example, can be measured as precisely as
you wish, the more uncertain a complementary quantity,
momentum in the case of position, becomes. The same
uncertainty relation applies to time and energy. You can
measure the energy of a system as precisely as you like, but
there is a minimum time required to measure its energy to a
given precision. Conversely, the energy of a system can be
said to fluctuate to an increasing extent as you observe it
over shorter and shorter intervals.
On the scale of atoms and subatomic particles, the results
of this uncertainty have profound effects. For the
uncertainty of energy at very short time intervals means
there is a nonzero probability that, at a given instant, the
Krypton-85 nucleus will have enough energy to surmount the
hill that is confining it. Once pushed over the edge, the
energy released pays back the uncertainty principle's
"energy loan" in a time less than would be required to
measure the momentary non-conservation of energy. One can
also view the confined Krypton nucleus as "tunnelling
through" the barrier confining it--in fact, this process is
called "quantum tunnelling".
But even though the energy loan which triggers which beta
decay is not detectable, the decay that results most
definitely is and, being impossible in the absence of the
uncertainty principle, demonstrates its essential role in
nuclear and atomic physics.
Interesting website.
OK. You're going to ask for some backup for what I said. Let me
Google.
http://library.thinkquest.org/3471/radiation_types_body.html
Notice the words "occurs" and "because".
This article does not give you the complete picture of what goes
on in the atom. In particular, it doesn't address quantum
mechanics at all. It's not wrong, it just doesn't tell you much
about what is known about radioactive decay.
Well, I was just looking for the basics including any declarative
statements on cause as opposed to "the atom doesn't ever change and
just decays for no reason".
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00774.htm
Read the reply by Vince Calder.
He seemed to be unsure of the answer himself and reluctant to
acknowledge the cause, if any. Yet, Calder did state "It is true that
a neutrino comes out, and the decay is caused by "weak-nuclear-force"
interactions."
http://www.physchem.co.za/Atomic/Radioactivity.htm
Same comments as your first reference.
Now, we may not understand it or even be able to predict the decay of
any particular atom. But, not knowing is a far cry from stating that
such a decay has no cause.
Science cannot differentiate between something which has no cause and
something which has no observable cause. The two are in fact, one and the
same. If you'd like to argue that God causes each atom to decay, science
can't prove that you are wrong, but it seems rather vacuous.
Ah! You are taking the position that a null answer has the same
significance as an unknown answer.
I'm not sure what a "null answer" means in this context. Quantum
mechanics is a very strange beast, what it means is that we simply
cannot measure systems accurately to determine the cause of radioactive
decay.
OK. I meant "null" in that there is no answer as the question is moot
or illogical.
<snip>
I mean, what are the odds that the universe is expanding slow enough to
let once-disassembled matter combine to form stars and planets but fast
enough to prevent gravity from collapsing the universe?
The answer the question as you wrote it is still 1:1. What you seem
to mean is, could the expansion rate have been different? Nobody
knows.
Also, what are the odds that the strong nuclear force is just as we see
it? Too weak and a nucleus with more than one proton would not hold
together and hydrogen would be the only element in existence. Too
strong, as little as 1%, and hydrogen and elements heavier than iron
(formed in stars using hydrogen) would be rare.
Again, no one really knows if the values of these constants could have
been different. So to ask "what are the odds" presupposes that they
could.
<snip>
But don't the odds of everything appearing this way and being stable
make you think twice about how it happened?
Sure. Why is there something instead of nothing? Hard to get more
fundamental than that. But the people who actually think hard about
this question don't find your preferred response (<entity> made it
that way) good enough to be even considered an answer.
Your response is accurate only when applied to precommitted atheists,
agnostics, and skeptics.
<snip>
Someday, we will create life from non-life. I don't doubt that. What
I am trying to ascertain is how nature did it and how we know that
nature did it.
Really? Here's a link to a list of references, then.
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/modorlife.html
Have a good time researching.
Been there already. Talk about assumptions, unsupported guesses, and
assertions based on those assumptions and unsupported guesses.
I wouldn't think of impinging on your territory.
No. Feel free to imping as much as you like. :-)
Mark
--
"I'm gonna act grown up/That's my plan"
Jack Dominey
jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
R.I.P. Bob Denver
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
- From: Mark VandeWettering
- Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
- Prev by Date: Re: NCSE mention!
- Next by Date: Re: Nuking Iran - New Wave of R-W patriotism - Rise of YEC ?
- Previous by thread: Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
- Next by thread: Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
