Expert: Philip Stahl - 2/23/2009

Question
I am an young earth creationist.My two questions are thus.Please explain how something can come from nothing in contradiction to the First Law Of Thermodynamics?Also based on observed rotational speeds of the stars in our galaxy if our universe were a 100 million yrs old it would be a featureless smear of stars instead of its present spiral shape.So how do evolutionists propose the universe is billions of yrs old?Thank you

Answer
Hello,

First, it is not technically possible to apply the first law of thermodynamics to the *inception* of the cosmos. The 1st law is an extension of the conservation of mass-energy and applies when there is a change in internal energy (dU) of a system, a quantitiy of heat (dQ) is added and work is done on the system(-dW). Thus:

dU = dQ - dW

is one variation of the first law (for infinitesimal changes).

The problem is at instant of inception, NO SYSTEM YET EXISTS for which heat can be added or work can be done! (We are, in effect, talking about the inception of a system's existence)

Hence, one is not applying the first law appropriately if done at inception. This is similar to those who assert the whole universe must be "winding down" because the 2nd law (of thermodynamics) says so, when it actually says that disorder tends to increase probabilistically in a *closed* system, and the universe doesn't fit this bill.

Now, can something appear out of "nothing" as it were? We already have evidence that it can. This occurs in what we call "pair production" and the process can be displayed in what we call "Feynman diagrams". (You can google both these phrases-terms to learn more)

The main proviso is that there be enough energy available to engender a rest mass equal to the total rest mass of the particles produced (generally a particle, and an anti-particle)

The basic physical principle underlying this process is the energy -time uncertainty principle. That is:

(delta E) (delta t) > =  h/ 2 pi

where delta E is the change in energy, delta t the change in time, and h is the Planck constant ( ~ 6.62 x 10^-34 Joule-sec)

The change in energy needed for the production of the needed rest mass can then be recast:

delta E > = [h/2 pi]/ (delta t)

In other words, delta E must be greater than or equal to the quantity on the right.

Let us take an example, to illustrate. We ask how much energy is available if the time change (delta t) is 1.0 x 10^-20 s.

The answer is approximately delta E ~  1.05 x 10^-14 Joule

This would amount to about 0.066 keV (thousand electron volts) or more than ample to form an electron neutrino pair.

In the same way, we surmise that a quantum fluctuation could incept the cosmos, if the time differential were small enough. An excellent paper that explores this, and one which you may wish to try to locate is: , ‘Universe Before Planck Time – A Quantum Gravity Model, in Physical Review D, Vol. 28, No. 4, p. 756, by T. Padmanabhan.

Padmanabhan invokes a model for the instantaneous formation of the universe by a possible quantum fluctuation (based on the energy-time uncertainty principle)  but which arises (in HIS case) when one treats the conformal part of space-time as a quantum variable.

As Padmanbhan shows in his paper, such a cosmos from nothing is perfectly expected and indeed, follows from the basis of the tensor set up, the light cone restrictions and so on.

In his own jargon:

"If the Euclidean four-sphere were perfectly round, both the closed and open analytical continuations (using complex integrals around specific paths), would inflate forever. This would mean they would never form galaxies. A perfect round four sphere has a lower action, and hence a higher a-priori probability than any other four -metric (x, y, z, t) of the same volume. "

I don't doubt that most laymen wouldn't understand the preceding, far less the concept of conformal space-time or de Sitter space or much (if anything) of Padmanabhan's paper, but that deficiency doesn't mean it can't happen. It only means most laymen will rely on more intuitive or simpler explanations, which preferably do not require much math.

As far as the age of the universe (now taken to be ~ 13.7 billion years, not 100 million) this follows from applying the well known Doppler effect to light waves as observed from distant objects.

The velocity of recession (v) of a given distant object, say a quasar, is related to its distance by:

v =  H D

where H is the Hubble constant, and D the distance.

Currently, we estimate H   ~ 70 km/ sec/Mpc

(Where Mpc denotes ‘megaparsec’ – e.g. 3.26 light years is one parsec)

the age of the universe (in seconds) related to the Hubble constant by:

t = 1/ H

whence we obtain the 13.7 billion figure.

Bottom line: the expanding universe (readily observed) and the red shift of galaxies (deduced from applying Doppler effect for light) leads to this result.

One final point, "evolutionists" have nothing to do with this result - it is purely deduced from astronomical observations, the Doppler effect & Hubble law, and no reference is made to evolution!

Hope this serves to clarify.