No, Quantum Physics Doesn’t Explain How the Universe Was Created
Right off the bat, allow me to make it clear I am a journalist by training, not a physicist, so I don’t claim any expertise regarding quantum mechanics. But as a journalist, I do have a fair amount of experience assessing the credibility of claims, including the one often posed by atheists that the universe “popped into existence” in a quantum mechanics sort of way.
Photo by Greg Rakozy on Unsplash
Whenever I’ve encountered this claim, it has prompted my red flags to pop up (no pun intended) because it seemed to me to be begging the question of what was the origin of the energy that “popped” into existence as the particles of the universe.
Dr. Jeff Miller of Apologetics Press captures the essence of this argument in this passage from a lengthy analysis he wrote some years ago:
“In 1973, physicist Edward Tryon of the Hunter College of the City University of New York published a paper in the British science journal Nature titled, ‘Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation?’
“He proposed the idea that the Universe could be a large scale vacuum energy fluctuation. He said, ‘In answer to the question of why it happened, I offer the modest proposal that our universe is simply one of those things which happen from time to time.’
“Does it really? Cosmologist and theoretical physicist Alexander Vilenkin, Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University, said:
“‘Now, what Tryon was suggesting was that our entire universe, with its vast amount of matter, was a huge quantum fluctuation, which somehow failed to disappear for more than 10 billion years. Everybody thought that was a very funny joke. But Tryon was not joking. He was devastated by the reaction of his colleagues … ‘
“Though he was originally scoffed at, Tryon’s theory has gained traction among many prominent evolutionary scientists. After all, if true, according to Vilenkin, ‘such a creation event would not require a cause’ for the Universe.”
Go here to read the balance of Miller’s analysis, which, be forewarned, is lengthy and rather technical in multiple places. Still, if you work on the Hill and have even a remote interest in understanding the flaws and strengths of the various alternative explanations for why there is something rather than nothing, this is worth your time and mental energy for the reading.