First causes and quantum mechanics?

[faustuz]

I have a question to those on this forum who have some insight into quantum physics. First of all, this question relates to the first cause argument that one might find over on EOG. I don’t want to discuss the first cause argument specifically, but rather wonder if the claim “Everything that has a beginning has a cause” is supported by quantum theory. My layman’s understanding is that quantum fluctuations, or the Heisenburg Uncertainty Theorem in particular, allows for the spontaneous creation of particles in a vacuum. Is this the case, and if so does it contradict “Everything that has a beginning has a cause”?

Thank you for your insight.

[Tetlepanquetzatzin]

Originally posted by faustuz
I have a question to those on this forum who have some insight into quantum physics. First of all, this question relates to the first cause argument that one might find over on EOG. I don’t want to discuss the first cause argument specifically, but rather wonder if the claim “Everything that has a beginning has a cause” is supported by quantum theory. My layman’s understanding is that quantum fluctuations, or the Heisenburg Uncertainty Theorem in particular, allows for the spontaneous creation of particles in a vacuum. Is this the case, and if so does it contradict “Everything that has a beginning has a cause”?

Thank you for your insight.
Until a careful definition of "cause" is given that only uses concepts from physics the prospect for finding a definite answer remains poor (how many metaphysical questions have been settled in the past millenium?). In the mean time it can noted that the process of particle creation or annihilation is less mysterious than one might suppose from popular descriptions. It is a natural consequence of a deterministic equation of motion. In quantum field theory a particle is considered to be a quantum of a field. E.g. an electron is a quantum of the "electron field", a photon is a quantum of an electromagnetic field, a proton is a result of various quark fields having become tangled in a certain way, etc. The number of particles of a particular kind depends on the state of the respective field. Thus, when the fields interact deterministically with each other the number of particles can change.

[faustuz]

OK, then, thanks. I have a follow up, for you or anybody else who cares to contribute. I found the following at http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec17.html , apparently from course matierials for a university physics course (and I’ve seen similar explanations elsewhere):

“The cosmic singularity, that was the Universe at the beginning of time, is shielded by the lack of any physical observers. But the next level of inquiry is what is the origin of the emergent properties of the Universe, the properties that become the mass of the Universe, its age, its physical constants, etc. The answer appears to be that these properties have their origin as the fluctuations of the quantum vacuum.

The properties of the Universe come from `nothing', where nothing is the quantum vacuum, which is a very different kind of nothing. If we examine a piece of `empty' space we see it is not truly empty, it is filled with spacetime, for example. Spacetime has curvature and structure, and obeys the laws of quantum physics. Thus, it is filled with potential particles, pairs of virtual matter and anti-matter units, and potential properties at the quantum level.
The creation of virtual pairs of particles does not violate the law of conservation of mass/energy because they only exist for times much less than the Planck time. There is a temporary violation of the law of conservation of mass/energy, but this violation occurs within the timescale of the uncertainty principle and, thus, has no impact on macroscopic laws.”

Now, if this explanation holds any water (and I admit that I’m not qualified to comment on whether or not it does), then quantum fluctuation might indeed be called the “cause” of the observable structure of the universe, which could I think be stated as the “uncaused cause of the universe”. The fluctuations themselves have no cause but are, as you described, merely inevitable (though inherently unpredictable) outcomes of deterministic laws.

Anyway, I’d love the hear comments.

[nermal]

Jesse will be along soon, I'm sure.

Ed

[Aethari]

My layman’s understanding is that quantum fluctuations, or the Heisenburg Uncertainty Theorem in particular, allows for the spontaneous creation of particles in a vacuum. Is this the case, and if so does it contradict “Everything that has a beginning has a cause”?

Yes, it does. If space is observed on scales within a few orders of magnitude of the Planck length, you will see matter/antimatter particles pop into existence from nowhere, then proceed to annihilate each other a fraction of a second later. However, as I've said before, you have to be very careful when using these kind of virtual particle annihilations to start talking about the beginning of the universe.

While their existence DOES negate the validity of "Everything that has a beginning has a cause," it alone is not sufficient to argue that the universe is the result of some vast cosmic hiccup. There is a very large difference between matter/antimatter particles pairs erupting and annihilating each other within a miniscule space of time, and a cosmic singularity (or Planck-sized jumble of strings, depending on your preference) appearing from no-where and enduring over eons.

In my mind, the existence of this kind of virtual particle phenomena completely sinks the "Our Universe had a beginning, so it had to be caused by SOMETHING!" argument, because it shows that such reasoning is invalid. But it does not show that the universe was NOT created by something, or if it appeared from nothing, did so in a way that is theoretically related to the virtual particle annihilations.

There is a temporary violation of the law of conservation of mass/energy, but this violation occurs within the timescale of the uncertainty principle and, thus, has no impact on macroscopic laws

Ah, this is the important part. We can't say the same about the universe, because we've obviously been around a lot longer than the Planck time :D It it also important to clarify whether you're talking about uncaused *properties of* the universe, of an uncaused universe *itself.*

There really should be a Science board FAQ section-- a lot of these topics get covered again and again. It would be convenient to just have a FAQ that answers a few basic questions about BB cosmology, virtual particles, and any of the other things that seem to crop of routinely.

~Aethari

[faustuz]

I have a little further to go with this, and maybe if I’m really lucky I can cover some ground that hasn’t been hit again and again (maybe just a few times?). :) I too think it’s not useful to talk about what happened before the Plank time since we don’t really know anything about it, and such things as time, space, cause and effect may have no meaning there at all. What I think is more interesting is, what caused all the “stuff” in the universe. I think when people talk about first causes they are usually not thinking so much about what caused the universe to be, but what caused the universe to be full of “stuff”; ordered, complex, moving stuff; matter, antimatter, energy, whatever but clumped together to make that which we consider "things". The snippet I quoted above brought up this point that while quantum particle creation/destruction probably isn’t useful for explaining why the universe started to expand from the singularity, it might be useful explaining how all the stuff came to be. Therefore, if that’s the case, the first causes of all the stuff in the universe actually could be essentially uncaused, since one needs to consider that quantum particle creation/destruction is uncaused.

Again, your thoughts.

[Aethari]

I think when people talk about first causes they are usually not thinking so much about what caused the universe to be, but what caused the universe to be full of “stuff”; ordered, complex, moving stuff; matter, antimatter, energy, whatever but clumped together to make that which we consider "things".

Hm. That's a very interesting take on things-- after all, every time I've heard someone give a variant on the first cause argument, they generally include broad, sweeping gestures at the world around us.

The snippet I quoted above brought up this point that while quantum particle creation/destruction probably isn’t useful for explaining why the universe started to expand from the singularity, it might be useful explaining how all the stuff came to be. Therefore, if that’s the case, the first causes of all the stuff in the universe actually could be essentially uncaused, since one needs to consider that quantum particle creation/destruction is uncaused.

However, this kind of argument seems to beyond our current ability to answer. Many aspects of the universe, at least in superstring theory, might stem from extremely complex geometrical and mathematical considerations regarding strings. It becomes very difficult to talk about 'cause' in this sense-- is the fact that, to make up an example, X = 2.134 because of inexorable mathematical considerations grounds for saying X is 'caused'? Moreover, is the value of X 'caused' if it equals 2.134 because it is the most effecient result in terms of energy use, and therefor 'wins out' in probabalistic schemes? These questions are critical.

In my mind, while interesting, your point here seems somewhat..hm..needless. If mathematical and probabalistic considerations can't constitute cause, then any naturalistic universe is wholly 'uncaused.' (And this doesn't make sense on our general use of the term 'cause,' so we'd argue the opposite.) And if mathematical and probabalistic considerations DO count as 'cause,' then any naturalistic universe's 'stuff' comes from a causal chain, quantum mechanics nonwithstanding.

Might some things happen without being related at all to mathematical or probabalistic considerations? Surely, but even then, consider this-- if we say virtual particle annihilations occur without such connections, only because (by happening in time scale less than the Planck time) they do not violate the Law of Conservation of Energy, isn't that still defining cause, in a sense? The cause would be, "because it can." In many ways, our universe does whatever isn't expressly forbidden.

Even if, all these considerations aside, some process in our universe goes on without drawing upon anything that could be treated as a 'cause'-- we still aren't going to get to the level of 'stuff' without invoking causal processes at some point. In this sense, the point of your argument is lost, and it shows why technical philosophical arguments about causation normally focus on existence, not specified properties. Of course, I may be way off the mark here on what you meant, and perhaps taking too philosophical of a tack. (What I'm saying does, in some sense, contradict my first post-- you would really have to state whether 'because it can' qualifies as a cause in terms of virtual particles.) At any rate, I hope my rambling helps. :D

~Aethari

[faustuz]

First of all, I’m certainly not putting anything forward here as anything more than speculation. I well know that the question of what caused the universe to be as we view it is very much unanswered. However, it seems that the “quantum fluctuations did it” answer might be one that could either be proved or discarded in the conceivable future, since we seem to be rapidly learning about conditions shortly after the big bang.

I wonder why you say the point is needless, though. From a philosophical standpoint, from which the first causes argument originates, I will maintain that it is very significant. This is because, while I’ll agree that one would be justified in saying that these quantum fluctuations, or more correctly the mathematical laws that allowed them to occur, are causes themselves I don’t think they qualify as causes in the traditional philosophical sense. To get back, for instance, to the EOG argument, where First Cause usually comes up, I doubt saying “mathematical or probabilistic considerations” caused the universe would be very useful from the theist point of view, although it might be ammunition for the atheistic point of view. It really would leave only the question, who made the laws, open. I think causes are usually thought to involve a mover in a somewhat traditional sense, even if the mover be unmoved.

Anyway, my point is only that this would seem to have philosophical consequences, even if the scientific consequences are dubious. As you said earlier, particle creation/destruction seems to contradict first causes, as traditionally understood. I think, in fact, all it leaves is that causes are mathematical or probabilistic. The skeptical minded among us might already accept that, I suppose. In fact, I think I’m probably now treading on that ground that has been already covered a few thousand times here, i.e. “quantum mechanics obviates the need for first causes.”, so I guess I’d better shut up now.

Thanks again for your insight.

[FrankMan]

Greetings. New guy here.

The creation of virtual pairs of particles does not violate the law of conservation of mass/energy because they only exist for times much less than the Planck time. There is a temporary violation of the law of conservation of mass/energy, but this violation occurs within the timescale of the uncertainty principle and, thus, has no impact on macroscopic laws.”

Since the positive and negative energy of virtual particles cancel each other out why would there even be a 'temporary' violation of the law of conservation of mass/energy? And I ask the same about the universe. All of the positive energy in the universe is cancelled out by the 'negative' energy of gravity. So there's no reason why the universe would violate it either (temporarily or permanently).

Ah, this is the important part. We can't say the same about the universe, because we've obviously been around a lot longer than the Planck time

Not necessarily. The universe could be created for less than the Planck time and our memories created with it.

[Tetlepanquetzatzin]

Originally posted by FrankMan
Since the positive and negative energy of virtual particles cancel each other out why would there even be a 'temporary' violation of the law of conservation of mass/energy? And I ask the same about the universe. All of the positive energy in the universe is cancelled out by the 'negative' energy of gravity. So there's no reason why the universe would violate it either (temporarily or permanently).
Greetings FrankMan. Can you give an example of how the positive and negative energy of virtual particles cancel each other? (I agree that energy is conserved even when so-called virtual particles enter the picture, but not for the reason stated.)

[FrankMan]

Originally posted by Tetlepanquetzatzin
Greetings FrankMan. Can you give an example of how the positive and negative energy of virtual particles cancel each other? (I agree that energy is conserved even when so-called virtual particles enter the picture, but not for the reason stated.)

If you add up the energy in a pair of virtual particles (a particle and an antiparticle), you'll come up with 0. Does that help? If not then I'm not quite sure what you're asking.

[Tetlepanquetzatzin]

Originally posted by FrankMan
If you add up the energy in a pair of virtual particles (a particle and an antiparticle), you'll come up with 0. Does that help? If not then I'm not quite sure what you're asking.
Antiparticles don't have negative energy, but they are sometimes thought of as vacant "holes" where an ordinary particle fits in. E.g., an electron-positron pair results when an electron is "lifted" up from the Dirac sea. This leaves a vacant hole (a positron). However, this does not mean that positrons have negative energy. Low energy electrons and positrons will annihilate each other and produce photons with an energy of 1 keV. This means that total energy of an electron-positron pair is 1 keV (plus additional kinetic energy).

Changed in edit: I originally wrote that antiparticles are sometimes thought of as having negative energy, but this is less accurate than the modified description above.

[Aethari]

Not necessarily. The universe could be created for less than the Planck time and our memories created with it.

Er, well, that's just nutty skepticism-- of course, the universe might have had *any* physical properties conceviable 5 minutes ago, and we were just created with false memories of the past. But that doesn't really have any explanatory power, eh?

And yes, as was noted by Tet above and stated explicitly in the article, virtual particle activity doesn't upset the conversations of mass and energy because it occurs within the bounds of uncertainity created by quantum mechanics.

~Aethari

[Aethari]

I wonder why you say the point is needless, though. From a philosophical standpoint, from which the first causes argument originates, I will maintain that it is very significant. This is because, while I’ll agree that one would be justified in saying that these quantum fluctuations, or more correctly the mathematical laws that allowed them to occur, are causes themselves I don’t think they qualify as causes in the traditional philosophical sense. To get back, for instance, to the EOG argument, where First Cause usually comes up, I doubt saying “mathematical or probabilistic considerations” caused the universe would be very useful from the theist point of view, although it might be ammunition for the atheistic point of view.

In my mind, it's a great argument for the atheistic side of the First Cause debate. If anyone ever argues First Cause to you, then say this:

"Virtual particles clearly violate the 'Anything that has a beginning must have been caused' principle, and they are a well-accepted and theoretically explainable phenomena. Now, if you accept that virtual particle activity can exist without the interference of God, you have no legs to stand on when you claim the universe couldn't exist without the interefence of God. Granted, the theoretical justification would not be the same, but given that your statement about causal necessity has been shown faulty, we have no reason for thinking we will not discover a theoretical framework that explains the universe's existence at a later date. And, if you can't accept virtual particle activity without positing God, then you're just being an irrational dogmatist-- there is a solid theoretical framework that explain such activity, and insisting for no reason other than personal theological preference that God has a hand in it would be an explicit violation of Occam's Razor and good common sense."

What I was referring to as 'needless' was your specification that we talk about 'stuff' in the universe, as opposed to the universe itself. Perhaps I misunderstood you-- I was only saying I didn't see the utility in trying to frame the FC argument in terms of 'stuff,' or by trying to demonstrate that emerging properties of the universe were caused by uncaused phenomena. (Odd, that.) As I said above, it seems necessary only to reference virtual particles, then directly compare it to the traditional FC argument against a purely naturalistic universe-- invoking properties of our universe outside of this seems un-necessary. Hopefully that clears up what I meant. :D

~Aethari

[Bob K]

The essence of science is observation.

Thus, the key herein is observation and not speculation.

To make a scientific claim you must provide data which is based upon observation.

Has anyone ever observed actual so-called virtual particles that are supposed to pop in and out of existence from no known forms of matter/energy?

Or are virtual particles the result of mathematics instead of observations?

And how do we know there is no known matter/energy present in the areas of space within which virtual particles are supposed to be 'created'?

Thus, inre virtual particles, are we dealing with observation or speculation?

[Tetlepanquetzatzin]

Originally posted by Aethari
In my mind, it's a great argument for the atheistic side of the First Cause debate. If anyone ever argues First Cause to you, then say this:

"Virtual particles clearly violate the 'Anything that has a beginning must have been caused' principle, and they are a well-accepted and theoretically explainable phenomena. [...]"
In what way, vis-à-vis causes, is a process involving virtual particles fundamentally different from a process when a ball is knocked into the corner pocket in a game of pool?

Calculations of the time evolution of states in quantum field theory involves difficult and complicated equations. Therefore one often use a perturbation approach, i.e. one writes the time evolution as a particular kind of sum of infinitely many terms. In doing so one hopes that only a few of the terms will give a large contribution to the total sum and that these terms will be comparatively easy to compute. Each term in the inifinite series can be given a graphical representation called a Feynman diagram. The primary function of a such a diagram is simply to give a complicated term a "make over" so that it doesn't look so ugly and unappealing.

Here's a picture of two Feynman diagrams for electron-electron interaction:
http://musr.physics.ubc.ca/~jess/p200/hep/img9.gif
The zeroth-order Feynman diagram of this process would simply show two electrons completely unaffected by each other and following straight paths. The first-order Feynman diagram is shown on the left. This term can be interpreted physically as corresponding an exchange of a virtual photon. The second-order Feynman diagram is shown to the right. It can be interpreted physically as corresponding to the exchange of two virtual photons. Depending on the degree of accuracy required we should continue to also compute the third-order term, the fourth-order term, ...., the 1023:rd order term, ...

Popular sources typically only show the first-order diagram, but the process is really a mix of all diagrams, some of which give larger contributions than others. Moreover, the process is as deterministic as the classical description of the trajectories of balls on a pool table.

[Aethari]

In what way, vis-à-vis causes, is a process involving virtual particles fundamentally different from a process when a ball is knocked into the corner pocket in a game of pool?

Well, I had been led to believe that virtual particle activity was fundamentally uncaused-- the only reason 'why' such a phenomena exists is 'because it can' --uncertainity in quantum mechanics allows it. I understand the rest of your post, I believe, but I'm not sure how it relates to my earlier post that you quoted-- I wasn't commenting about 'processes that involve virtual particles' so much as 'the existence of virtual particles themselves.'

Moreover, the process is as deterministic as the classical description of the trajectories of balls on a pool table.

Perhaps you can elaborate on this for me, or maybe we're just talking past each other-- what deterministic process dicatates when and why virtual particles pop into existence? I'm not disputing that virtual particles can be part of a process that is deterministic itself, but I thought that their spontaneous existence and subsequent annihilation was fundamentally uncaused-- it happens just because it can.

~Aethari

[Jesse]

Aetheri, there are two different elements in quantum mechanics--the evolution of the wavefunction in between measurements, which is totally deterministic, and the measurement process itself, in which the probability of different possible outcomes is given by the square of the amplitude of the wavefunction on each possible outcome. In order to make any predictions, you take some set of initial measurements and use it to construct a wavefunction for the system, which you then evolve forward according to deterministic rules, and you use the state of the wavefunction at the moment of your next measurement to make predictions about what outcomes you are likely to see, using the probability=amplitude-squared rule.

This is how nonrelativistic quantum mechanics works, I haven't studied quantum field theory but I think it works basically the same way described above, where you have a wavefunction that evolved deterministically in between measurements and then you square the amplitude at the moment of your measurement to find the probabilities of different outcomes. In nonrelativistic QM there is something called the "Feynman path integral" or "sum-over-histories" approach to calculating how the wavefunction evolves between measurements, where you basically do a certain kind of sum over paths the particles can be imagined to having taken between measurements, and this tells you the wavefunction's amplitude on different possibilities at the moment of the second measurement. In nonrelativistic QM this is just a calculating tool, you get the same answers for the amplitude if you use another technique which doesn't involve summing imaginary paths. I think when Tetlepanquetzatzin talks about summing various particle interaction diagrams in quantum field theory, it's the same idea, although I'm not sure if quantum field theory has any equivalent formulation which don't involve a sum-over-histories (I think it does, though).

[Tetlepanquetzatzin]

Originally posted by Aethari
Well, I had been led to believe that virtual particle activity was fundamentally uncaused-- the only reason 'why' such a phenomena exists is 'because it can' --uncertainity in quantum mechanics allows it. I understand the rest of your post, I believe, but I'm not sure how it relates to my earlier post that you quoted-- I wasn't commenting about 'processes that involve virtual particles' so much as 'the existence of virtual particles themselves.
By "processes that involve virtual particles" I do not mean processes where preexisting virtual particles are involved (that's an oxymoron, albeit perhaps not obviously so---virtual particles only "exist" during an interaction, the incoming and outgoing lines in Feynman diagrams are AFAIK always real particles). Virtual particles are things that figure in partial descriptions of interactions.
Perhaps you can elaborate on this for me, or maybe we're just talking past each other-- what deterministic process dicatates when and why virtual particles pop into existence? I'm not disputing that virtual particles can be part of a process that is deterministic itself, but I thought that their spontaneous existence and subsequent annihilation was fundamentally uncaused-- it happens just because it can.
I do not know what it means to be caused or uncaused, but the process is deterministic (see Jesse's post).

The virtual particles are not particles that follow trajectories in space and time. Unlike the situation for ordinary particles, there is no wave function describing the probability that a virtual particle will be found somewhere. Not even the number of virtual particles is well-defined. If we were clever enough to solve the physics equations without making approximations virtual particles wouldn't even appear in our theory.

[Tetlepanquetzatzin]

Originally posted by Jesse
This is how nonrelativistic quantum mechanics works, I haven't studied quantum field theory but I think it works basically the same way described above, where you have a wavefunction that evolved deterministically in between measurements and then you square the amplitude at the moment of your measurement to find the probabilities of different outcomes.
Yep.
In nonrelativistic QM there is something called the "Feynman path integral" or "sum-over-histories" approach to calculating how the wavefunction evolves between measurements, where you basically do a certain kind of sum over paths the particles can be imagined to having taken between measurements, and this tells you the wavefunction's amplitude on different possibilities at the moment of the second measurement. In nonrelativistic QM this is just a calculating tool, you get the same answers for the amplitude if you use another technique which doesn't involve summing imaginary paths. I think when Tetlepanquetzatzin talks about summing various particle interaction diagrams in quantum field theory, it's the same idea, although I'm not sure if quantum field theory has any equivalent formulation which don't involve a sum-over-histories (I think it does, though).
Feynman's path integral is a way to express the propagator, which in turn determines the time evolution operator.

Summing Feynman diagrams is a way to compute (or approximate) the time evolution operator. In the interaction picture or Dirac picture of non-relativistic QM (as opposed to the Schrödinger and Heisenberg picture) the time evolution operator satisfies

i hbar dU(t)/dt = V(t)U(t).

where U is the time evolution operator and V is a perturbation term in the total Hamiltonian operator of the system. We can integrate this to obtain

(*) U(t) = I + 1/(i hbar) \int V(s)U(s)ds,

where I is the identity operator (we get an integration constant, but the initial condition U(0) = I fixes the constant to I) and "\int" means integration from 0 to t. Now iterate this integral, i.e. substitute "U(s)" for the entire right hand side. This gives

U(t) = I + 1/(i hbar) \int V(s) (I + 1/(i hbar) \int V(r)U(r)dr) ds
= I + 1/(i hbar) \int V(s) ds + 1/(i hbar)^2 \int \int V(s)V(r)U(r)dsdr

where the underlining shows where the expression of U(s) given by (*) was put in.
The iterations can be continued so that we get an infinite series expansion of U(t), with each term being an increasingly nasty multiple integral. Each such term corresponds to a Feynman diagram.

[wiploc]

Originally posted by faustuz
Is this the case, and if so does it contradict “Everything that has a beginning has a cause”?

I think it does contradict the premise that everthing that has a beginning has a cause. I point out the dubious quality of that premise I debate creationists. But I also point out that the premise, if true, proves that the universe is unbegun.

They can go either way on the issue of whether things need causes, but as long as you don't let them two-step, they can't prove what they want to prove.

crc

[Bob K]

“Everything that has a beginning has a cause”

Does everything that has a beginning have a cause?

From thermodynamics, and from experiments which confirm E = mc2 & m = E/c2, these facts are in evidence --

1. matter/energy is indestructible,
2. m/e is infinite in duration,
3. m/e is changeable in form, m <-> e,
4. in an isolated m/e system --
A. m/e cannot be taken away (where would it go?),
B. m/e cannot be added (where would it come from?),
C. the sum total of m/e is a constant, describable by a finite number.

The m/e of the universe fits the description of an isolated m/e system wherein m/e cannot be added to the m/e of the universe (where would it come from?) and m/e cannot be taken away from the m/e of the universe (where would it go?) and therefore the universal m/e must be a finite quantity.

Logical Argument: The M/E of the Universe is a Closed/Isolated M/E System

1. Premise: A closed energy system [matter/energy system] is operationally defined as an energy system from which energy cannot be taken and to which energy cannot be added. [Verified Operational Definition: Thermodynamics]
2. Premise: Matter/energy cannot be taken away from nor added to the matter/energy system of the universe. [From whence would it come? To whence would it go?]
3. Conclusion: The matter/energy system of the universe is a closed system.

Logical Argument: The M/E of the Universe is a Finite Quantity.

1. Premise: In a closed/isolated m/e system, the quantity of m/e is finite. [Verified by the observations of thermodynamicists]
2. Premise: The m/e of the universe is a closed/isolated m/e system. [The conclusion of the previous logical argument whose premises are verified by the observations of thermodynamicists, and, because the premises are verified and relevant to the conclusion, the conclusion is both valid and true]
3. Conclusion: The m/e of the universe is a finite quantity.

Matter and energy, m/e, has been determined by thermodynamicists and chemists to be indestructible, hence the law of the conservation of energy, and particle physicists have determined that Albert E's E = mc2 and m = E/c2 have been confirmed and thereby show that m can be converted into e and e can be converted into m (e <-> m).

All of this shows that the m/e of the universe is indestructible and therefore always present and therefore infinite in duration, and is always a finite quantity, never increasing, never decreasing.

Causality is causes causing effects.

Restated: Causality is people/things/events who/which as causes cause/create people/things/events who/which are effects (and future causes of future effects).

Causality is therefore an explanation of how and why causes caused effects.

Restated: A causal explanation is a description of how and why the people/things/events who/which were causes caused/created people/things/events who/which were effects.

Causality is always a function of m/e.

Space is not a cause of effects, time is not a cause of effects, therefore only m/e can be a cause of effects.

Restated: Space is not observed to produce a force which causes changes of inertial states and therefore is a cause of effects; time is not observed to produce a force which causes changes of inertial states and therefore is a cause of effects, therefore only m/e can produce a force which causes changes of inertial states and therefore is a cause of effects.

Restated: People/things/events who/which are comprised of m/e and who/which are causes cause/create people/things/events who/which are comprised of m/e and who/which are effects.

From all this we can deduce that (A) the m/e of the universe is indestructible/infinite in duration although finite in quantity and (B) the m/e of the universe is the source of causality, the source of causes causing effects.

The focus herein is on causality not being a finite sequence of causes causing effects leading back to a first cause but instead an infinite sequence of causes causing effects arising from a single source of causality which is the m/e of the universe.

Thus, the phrase, “Everything that has a beginning has a cause”, describes sequences of causes causing effects being ultimately caused by the source of causality which is the m/e of the universe.

Therefore, something comes from something, something is caused by something, something comprised of m/e as an effect is caused by a cause which is something which is comprised of m/e, something comprised of m/e as an effect cannot be caused by something which is not comprised of m/e; nothing comes from nothing.

The causal sequence is thus:

1. The Beginning = Pre-existing people/things--somethings--comprised of m/e who/which are causes.
2. The causal event consists of people/things--somethings--comprised of m/e who/which are causes produce forces which are causes of changes of inertial states.
3. The Ending = People/things--somethings--comprised of m/e who/which are effects.

This causal sequence produces the pre-existing people/things who/which are causes of future causal sequences which produce subsequent/consequent people/things who/which are effects and causes of future causal sequences.

The pre-existing people/things herein, being comprised of m/e, are the observable data/examples of the m/e which is the source of causality.

Thus, the source of causality--the m/e of the universe--does not have a beginning but instead is the source of the pre-existing people/things found to be causes at the beginning of each causal sequence who/which cause the causal event which cause the people/things--the everythings--found to be effects at the ending of each causal sequence.

So-called 'virtual particles' therefore would have to be not uncaused but instead, having a beginning and and ending, would have to be caused by m/e and would have to be comprised therefore of m/e, which means the 'vacuum' from which 'virtual particles' appear is not a pure vacuum but instead has in it m/e of some kind and is therefore not a vacuum at all, but, instead, is an area of space in which m/e is present.

Causality is determinism.

Restated: Determinism is specific people/things/events who/which are comprised of m/e and who/which are causes cause/create specific people/things/events who/which are comprised of m/e and who/which are effects.

In the heart of quantum mechanics lies determinism--causes causing effects.

Because we have an observational problem wherein observation of specific small stuffs disturbs the position or velocity of the specific small stuffs, therefore we cannot determine simultaneously the position and velocity of specific small stuffs and thereby determine which of the specific small stuffs will cause other specific small stuffs, which means we must use generalized observed causal averages of crowds of small stuffs for determining the determinism of a specific crowd of small stuffs.

Restated: Determinism in qm is not relevant to specific small stuffs but instead is relevant to specific crowds of small stuffs.

Thus, for large stuffs as well as small stuffs, everything that has a beginning has a cause.