This paper has been made available by Reasons to Believe. The original can be found here. Reprinted by permission.

Quantum Mechanics, a Modern Goliath

by Hugh Ross, Ph. D.

related articles:

• Evidence for Design of the Cosmos
• New Astronomical Proofs for the Existence of God
• Quantum Gravity and the Origin of the Universe
• Design and the Anthropic Principle
• Astronomical Evidences for the God of the Bible

A few years ago an alarm was sounded like the one that echoedthrough Israel's camp in the days of King Saul. The giant, thistime, is quantum mechanics, heralded by theologians as "thegreatest contemporary threat to Christianity."' Physicistshave proliferated popular books exploiting the esoteric nature ofquantum phenomena to undermine the Christian view of origins.

These attacks seem to express a defiant reaction to themounting evidence from physics and astronomy that theuniverse-all matter, energy, space, and time-began in atranscendent creation event,² and that theuniverse has been strategically designed for life.³ Thisevidence is now sufficient to rule out all theological options,but one-the Bible's. Obviously, this unexpected turn of researchproves discomforting to those who reject the message of salvationin Jesus Christ alone.

In their insistence that the inescapable creator-designercannot be the God of the Bible, these individuals grope for areplacement. Five "possibilities" have been proposed:

1. quantum tunneling

British astrophysicist Paul Davies in his book God and theNew Physics locks all cause-and-effect phenomena into thetime dimension of the universe. Because the act of creatingrepresents cause and effect, and thus a time-bound activity, theevidence for the origin of time, says Davies, argues againstGod's agency in the creation of the universe.⁴

Apparently, Davies is (or was) unaware that the Bible speaksof God's causing effects even before the beginning of time.⁵The Bible also speaks of the existence of dimensions beyondour time and space, extra dimensions in which God exists andoperates. Such extra dimensions are now verified by scientificdiscoveries.⁶

Noting that virtual particles can pop into existence fromnothingness through quantum tunneling,^a Davies employsthe new grand unified theories to suggest that in the same mannerthe whole universe popped into existence. Ironically, hisargument against God's creating can now be turned against hishypothesis. Quantum mechanics is founded on the concept thatquantum events occur according to finite probabilities withinfinite time intervals. The larger the time interval, the greaterthe probability that a quantum event will occur. Outside of time,however, no quantum event is possible.^b Therefore, theorigin of time (coincident with that of space, matter, andenergy) eliminates quantum tunneling as "creator."

To Davies' credit, he has been revising his position. Herecently argued that the

laws of physics "seem themselves to be the product ofexceedingly ingenious design."⁷ Still morerecently he posed this question: "If new organizationallevels just pop into existence for no reason, why do we see suchan orderly progression in the universe from featureless origin torich diversity?"⁸ He concludes that we have"powerful evidence that there is 'something going on' behindit all."⁹

2. infinite chances

As amazing as it may seem, astronomers and physicists have agood understanding of the development of the universe back towhen it was only 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001 (i.e.,10-34) second old. We may see some probing back to 10^-43 seconds,but that represents the practical limit of research.

American astrophysicist Richard Gott has taken advantage ofthis infinitesimal period about which we know nothing. Heproposes that there is an infinite loss of information aboutevents before10^-43 seconds. With this total loss ofinformation, he says, anything becomes possible, including"the ability to make an infinite number of universes."¹⁰In this "possibility" for an infinite number ofuniverses, some non-theists see an opportunity to replace Godwith chance, or, more specifically, with random fluctuations of aprimeval radiation field.

This question remains, however: If the universe had zeroinformation before 10^-43 seconds, how did it acquireits subsequent high information state without the input of anintelligent, personal Creator? A personal Creator is required,too, to explain the existence of the primeval radiation field.

For centuries atheists and agnostics have mocked Christiansfor their "God of the gaps," that is, for invokingdivine miracles wherever gaps were encountered in man'sunderstanding of the physical universe. Now we are seeing thereverse situation, the "chance of the gaps." It seemsthat scientists (and others) are relying on gaps, and in thiscase a very minute one, to give them a way around the obvioustheistic implications of scientifically established facts.Surely, the burden of proof lies with those who suggest thatphysical conditions and physical laws were totally different inthe period before 10^-43 seconds.

3. no singularity

While evidence for a transcendent creation event is receivinggeneral acceptance throughout the physical science community,there have been some notable holdouts. American theoreticianHeinz Pagels, for one, refused to acknowledge that physicalsingularities can ever exist. He said, "The appearance ofsuch a singularity is a good reason for rejecting the standardmodel of the very origin of the universe altogether."¹¹While admitting that Einstein's equations of generalrelativity, along with observationally verified conditions, dorequire an inevitable singularity, he nonetheless felt that inthe region of ignorance at the beginning of time a loophole mustexist.

Pagels' point, similar to Richard Gott's, is thatastrophysicists have a good understanding of the development ofthe universe only as far back as 10^-34 seconds afterthe (apparent) singular creation event. What happens before,therefore, remains an open question.

As far back as 1973 Ed Tryon suggested that a quantummechanical fluctuation in "the vacuum" created theuniverse.¹² Later he was joined by several otherAmerican and Russian theoreticians,^13-17 all of whomhave posited that by the laws of physics "nothing isunstable." While one of this group's members, the inventorof the inflationary big bang model, Man Guth, concedes that"such ideas are speculation squared," all of theirmodels do circumvent the big bang singularity. They do not,however, circumvent the beginning of space-time-matter-energy.Thus, agreement with the Biblical doctrine of creation stillstands.

One of the most elegant vacuum fluctuation models waspublished in 1984 when Steven Hawking teamed up with Americanphysicist James Hartle.^{18, 19} Their notion is thatjust as a hydrogen atom can be described by a quantum mechanicalwave function, so can the universe be described. Thus, thesingularity disappears, and yet the entire universe still popsinto existence at the beginning of time. Here is Pagels response:

This unthinkable void converts itself into the plenum ofexistence-a necessary consequence of physical laws. Where arethese laws written into that void? What "tells" thevoid that it is pregnant with a possible universe? It would seemthat even the void is subject to law, a logic that exists priorto space and time.²⁰

Once again, the Biblical doctrine of creation is deduced.

Later, in his popular book A Brief History of Time (1988),Hawking reformulated his escape from the singularity:

If the universe really is in such a quantum state, there wouldbe no singularities in the history of the universe in imaginarytime. .. .The universe could be finite in imaginary time butwithout boundaries or singularities. When one goes back to thereal time in which we live, however, there will still appear tobe singularities. ... Only if [we] lived in imaginary time would[we] encounter no singularities.... in real time, the universehas a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundaryto space-time and at which the laws of science break down.²¹

In other words, God, who according to the Bible transcends"real time,"²² would not be confined toboundaries and singularities, but human beings and the physicaluniverse, both of which are limited to real time, would be soconfined. Hence, Hawking's famous query ("What place, then,for a creator?"²³) notwithstanding, there isstill no escape from the Biblical doctrine of creation.^c

4. man as Creator

A case for man as the creator has been fabricated from ananalogy to delayed-choice experiments in quantum mechanics. Insuch experiments it appears that the observer can influence theoutcome of quantum mechanical events. With every quantum particlethere is an associated wave. This wave represents the probabilityof finding the particle at a particular point in space. Beforethe particle is detected there is no specific knowledge of itslocation—only a probability of where it might be. But, oncethe particle has been detected, its exact location is known. Inthis sense, the act of observation is said by some to givereality to the particle. What is true for a quantum particle,they suggest, may be true for the universe.^{26, 27}

In other words, the universe produces man, but man through hisobservations of the universe brings the universe into reality.Here we find a reflection of the question debated in freshmenphilosophy classes across the land:

If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to see itor hear it, does it really fall?

Quantum mechanics merely shows us that in the micro world ofparticle physics man is limited in his ability to measure quantumeffects. Since quantum entities at any moment have the potentialto behave either as particles or as waves, it is impossible, forexample, to accurately measure both the position and the momentumof such an entity (the Heisenberg uncertainty principle). Inchoosing to determine the position of the entity, the humanobserver loses information about its momentum.

The observer does not give "reality" to the entity,but rather the observer chooses what aspect of the reality hewishes to discern. It is not that the Heisenberg uncertaintyprinciple disproves the principle of causality, but simply thatcausality in this case is hidden from human investigation. Thecause of the quantum effect is not lacking, nor isit mysteriously linked to the human observation of the effectafter the fact.^d

This misapplication of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle isbut one defect in the "observer-as-creator"propositions arising from quantum physics. Some other flawsinclude these:

Quantum mechanical limitations apply only to micro, not tomacro, systems. The relative uncertainty approaches zero as thenumber of quantum particles in the system increases. Therefore,what is true for a quantum particle would not be true for theuniverse as a whole.

The time separation between a quantum event and its observedresult is always a relatively short one (at least for theanalogies under discussion). The multi-billion-year timeseparation between creation of the universe and of man hardlyfits the picture.

The arrow of time has never been observed to reverse, nor dowe see any trace of evidence that a reversal might have takenplace beyond the scope of our observation. Time and causalitymove inexorably forward. Therefore, to suggest that humanactivity now somehow can affect events billions of years ago isnothing short of absurd.

Intelligence, or personality, is not a key factor in theobservation of quantum mechanical events. Photographic plates,for example, are perfectly capable of recording such events.

Both relativity and the gauge theory of quantum mechanics, nowestablished beyond reasonable doubt by experimental evidence,³⁰state that the correct description of nature is that inwhich the human observer is irrelevant.

Science has yet to produce a shred of evidence to support thenotion that man created his universe.

5. universe becoming God

In The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Britishastronomer John Barrow and American mathematical physicist FrankTipler³¹ review many evidences for design of theuniverse. They go on to examine some radical versions of theanthropic principle, including the feed-back loop connectionbetween man and the universe. Referring to such theories as PAP(participatory anthropic principle), they propose, instead, FAP(final anthropic principle).

With FAP, the life that now exists in the universe (and,according to PAP, that created the universe) will continue toevolve until it reaches a state they call the Omega Point.³²In a footnote they declare, "The totality of life atthe Omega Point is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient!"³³In other words, the universe created man, man created theuniverse, and together the universe and man in the end willbecome Almighty God. New York Times book reviewer MartinGardner gives this evaluation of their idea:

What should one make of this quartet of WAP, SAP, PAP, and FAP? In my not so humble opinion I think the last principle is best called CRAP, the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle.³⁴

In their persistent rejection of an eternal transcendentCreator-Designer, cosmologists (and others) are resorting to moreand more bizarre alternatives. An exhortation from the Bibleseems appropriate: "See to it that no one takes you captivethrough hollow and deceptive philosophy."³⁵

FOOTNOTES:

a. Quantum tunneling is the process by which quantummechanical particles penetrate barriers that would beinsurmountable to classical objects.

b. Since we lack thorough understanding about anything thatoccurs in that instant before the universe was 10^-43 secondsold, there necessarily exists the possibility that therelationship between time and the probability for certain quantumevents breaks down in that interval.

c. Hawking's stated goal "is a complete understanding ofeverything."²⁴ Since the existence of the God ofthe Bible or singularities would guarantee that his goal wouldnever be reached, he seeks to deny both. Ironically, his goal wasproven mathematically impossible by Kurt Godel in 1930. Accordingto Godel's in-completeness theorem, with incomplete informationabout a system, one cannot prove a necessarily true theorem(i.e., a one and only one description) about that system. ²⁵

d. One can easily get the impression from the physicsliterature that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantummechanics is the only accepted philosophical explanation of whatis going on in the micro world. According to this school ofthought: 1) There is no reality in the absence of observation; 2)Observation creates reality. Physicist Nick Herbert outlines andcritiques six additional philosophical models for interpretingquantum events.²⁸ Physicist and theologian StanleyJaki presents yet an eighth model.²⁹ While a dearphilosophical understanding of quantum reality is not yet agreedupon, physicists do agree on the results expected from quantumevents.

REFERENCES:

1. Emerson, Allen. "A Disorienting View of God's creation, in Christianity Today, February 1,1985, p.19.
2. Ross, Hugh. Cosmologv Confronts the Creator: New Proofs for God's Existence (Sierra Madre, CA: Reasons to Believe, 1987).
3. Ross, Hugh. Design and the Anthropic Principle. Pasadena, Calif. Reasons to Believe, 1988).
4. Ross, Hugh. Cosmology Confronts the Creator, pp.19-20, 24.
5. Davies, Paul. God and the New Physics (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983), pp.25-43, specifically pp. 38-39.
6. 2 Timothy 1:9 and Titus 1:2, The Holy Bible.
7. Davies, Paul. Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature (New York.. Simon and Schuster, 1984), p.243.
8. Davies, Paul. The Cosmic Blueprint New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability to Order the Universe. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1988), p.141.
9. Ibid., p.203.
10. Gott, J. Richard, III. "Creation of Open Universes from de Sitter Space," in Nature, 295 (1982), p.306.
11. Pagels, Heinz R., Perfect Symmetry: The Search for the Beginning of Time. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1985), p.244.
12. Tryon, Edward P. "Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation," in Nature, 246(1973), pp.396-397.
13. Atkatz, David and Pagels, Heinz. "Origin of the Universe as a Quantum Tunneling Event," in Physical Review D, 25 (1982), pp.2065-2073.
14. Vilenhin, Mexander. "Creation of Universes from Nothing," in Physical Letters B, 117 (1982), pp.25-28.
15. Zel'dovich, Yakob B. and Grishchuk, L. P. "Structure and Future of the 'New' Universe," in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 207(1984), pp. 23P-28P.
16. Vilenkin, Alexander. "Birth of Inflationary Universes," in Physical Review D, 27(1983), pp. 2848-2855.
17. Vilenkin, Alexander. "Quantum Creation of Universes," in Physical Review D, 30(1984), pp.509-511.
18. Hartle, James B. and Hawking Steven W. "Wave Function of the Universe," in Physical Review D, 28(1983), pp.2960-2975.
19. Hawking, Steven W. "The Quantum State of the Universe," in Nuclear Physics B, 239 (1984), pp.257-276.
20. Pagels, Heinz R, p.347.
21. Hawking, Stephen W. A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes. (New York: Bantam Books, 1988), p.139.
22. 2 Timothy 1:9 and Titus 1:2, The Holy Bible, New International Version.
23. Hawking, Stephen W., p.141.
24. Adler, Jerry, Lubenow, Gerald C., and Malone, Maggie. "Reading God's Mind," in Newsweek, June 13(1988), p.59.
25. Jaki, Stanley L. Cosmos and Creator (Edinburgh, U. K.: Scottish Academic Press, 1980), pp.49-54.
26. Wheeler, John Archibald. "Bohr, Einstein, and the Strange Lesson of the Quantum," in Mind in Nature, edited by Richard Q. Elvee (New York: Harper and Row, 1981), p.18.
27. Greenstein, George. The Symbiotic Universe: Life and Mind in the Cosmos (New York: William Morrow, 1988), p.223.
28. Herbert, Nick. Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics: An Excursion into Metaphysics and the Meaning of Reality New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday, 1987), pp. 16-29.
29. Jaki, Stanley L. Cosmos and Creator (Edinburgh, U.K.: Scottish Academic Press, 1980), pp.9698.
30. Trefil, James S. The Moment of Creation (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1983), pp.91-101.
31. Barrow, John D. and Tipler, Frank J. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986).
32. Ibid., p.677.
33. Ibid., pp. 677, 682.
34. Gardner, Martin. "WAP, SAP, PAP, and FAP." in The New York Review of Books, Vol.23, May 8, 1986, No.8, pp.22-25.
35. Colossians 2:8, The Holy Bible, New International Version.

For a catalog of materials pertaining to faith,science, and the Bible please write or call: REASONS TOBELIEVE, P.O. Box 5978, Pasadena, CA 91117(626) 335-1480.

Copyright 1989, Reasons To Believe

P8905

Return to Modern Cosmology Reveals the Existence of God