Quantum Physics!

[Blake Reas]

What are the implications for theology? I have read some really weird stuff about it, particles being two places at once etc. It seems to me to show that there is more to our universe than what meets the eye.

In Christ,
Blake Reas:huh:

[smilax]

Pilot-wave mechanics. I like causation.

[Sozo]

Blake Reas:
What are the implications for theology? I have read some really weird stuff about it, particles being two places at once etc. It seems to me to show that there is more to our universe than what meets the eye.

In Christ,
Blake Reas:huh:

What would be behind you if you were on the edge of the universe?

[GrayPilgrim]

Calling Jaltus! He's the guy to ask. He and his wife discuss particle physics over dinner, whatever particle physics is.

[Jaltus]

Particle physics and thus QM have little to do with theology, with the possible exception of God's relationship to time (you need QM vs. relativity to define time in the first place).

If you have questions about QM, I am the person around here to ask.

[Blake Reas]

Jaltus:
Particle physics and thus QM have little to do with theology, with the possible exception of God's relationship to time (you need QM vs. relativity to define time in the first place).

If you have questions about QM, I am the person around here to ask.

Thanks Jaltus, The reason I ask was because I saw John Polkinghornes (spelling?) in our book store and it was talking about it's implications for theology. I was looking into buying it but when I looked through it I decided not to because I could tell it was so far over my head that it would not even stretch my mind as a good book is supposed too! :rofl:

In Christ,
Blake Reas

[uber_loser]

Well I like the show Quantum leap......

[TheFiveSolas]

Jaltus,
A professor of physics at Cal State University recommended a book entitled (hmmm, or is it "titled"? Where is Till when you need him! LOL), "The Quantum Theory of Motion: An Account of the de Broglie-Bohm Causal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" by Peter R. Holland.
Have you read this book and can you comment on it? My backround is in Biology/Chemistry not physics. So, it was an interesting read for me, but I'm not qualified to assess what was being put forth. With that being said, I do like a CAUSAL interpretation of the theory!

[Jaltus]

I have not read it, but I do know a little about deBroglie-Brohm theories.

It would be worth picking up.

[Socrates]

A good article is by physicist Dr Don DeYoung, Creation and Quantum Mechanics (www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-305.htm)

[Brian]

Hello Everyone!

Instead of, "Quantum Mechanics...what are the implications for theology?", shouldn't it be, "Theology...what are the implications for Quantum Mechanics?"

Sincerely,

Brian

Protagoras: Truth is relative, it is only a matter of opinion.
Me: Are you absolutely sure about this?

[Rubens]

Dear Blake

I am probably too much of a luddite to get into quantum physics, but I think this has something to do with it:

Have a listen to Chuck Missler, if you haven't heard of him already. I don't have a web address, see if you can find his organisation on a search engine. Anyhow, he deals with theology from a scientific viewpoint. I'm not sure if he directly deals with QP, but there is some fascinating stuff about thermodynamics; the constantly changing nature of the universe, and the inconsistency of "standard" measurements for all physical properties (including time) due to the influence of extra dimensions outside the four that we know.

In other words, whatever QP scientists propose to challenge our theology will go the same way as every other "scientific" challenge to theology- the way of the dodo and alchemy.

:yipee:

[Rubens]

Blake, I have another couple of links with articles about QP/ Theology, very interesting (to me anyway!)

http://www.khouse.org/articles/technical/19980701-62.html

http://www.khouse.org/articles/technical/20020101-388.html (part 1)

http://www.khouse.org/articles/technical/20020201-398.html
(Part 2)

[TenDimensions]

01-30-2003 @ 12:34 PM
Jaltus:

Particle physics and thus QM have little to do with theology, with the possible exception of God's relationship to time (you need QM vs. relativity to define time in the first place).

If you have questions about QM, I am the person around here to ask.

Have you ever read Hyperspace by Michio Kaku? The book blew my mind and had me wondering how I could make a career change from software engineer to theoretical physicist! One of just a number of amazing books on the topic.

Roger Penrose also has some interesting ideas regarding the source of consciousness in the brain being rooted in quantum mechanics. Good stuff.

[PastorPenn]

02-22-2003 @ 08:15 AM
TenDimensions:



Have you ever read Hyperspace by Michio Kaku? The book blew my mind and had me wondering how I could make a career change from software engineer to theoretical physicist! One of just a number of amazing books on the topic.

Roger Penrose also has some interesting ideas regarding the source of consciousness in the brain being rooted in quantum mechanics. Good stuff.

I have read similar books regarding multidemsional space. I think, therefore I am...oops, sorry, got carried away, as I was saying, in my opinion, such a theory would explain some of the miricles of Jesus; of course faith does not require a disertation on space time.

I read an interesting book recently entitled Quantum Gravity by Lee Smolin. Very thought provoking. The theory requires the conceptulization of quantized space; think of a cubic inch of empty space and continue to divide it until you have a space similar in size to the negative of h and you will understand the starting premise.

[TenDimensions]

02-27-2003 @ 01:14 AM
PastorPenn:

I read an interesting book recently entitled Quantum Gravity by Lee Smolin.

I actually have that book on my bookshelf and it's in the queue to be read!

[Pilgrim]

Would the dual nature of light, ie. simultaneously particle and wave, fit into a dicussion of QP or is that another area?

[Socrates]

Pilgrim:Would the dual nature of light, ie. simultaneously particle and wave, fit into a dicussion of QP or is that another area?This is definitely appropriate in this thread!:thumb:

[Jaltus]

I have read some stuff by Kaku, but not in a long time (been out of QM for about 7 years now, though I miss it quite a lot).

The problem with multispace theory (or polydimensionality) is that it tends to make some large assumptions at the beginning, assumptions which are generally at the heart of the dispute, so they tend to be interesting but unhelpful.

[Kyle]

Jaltus, what's your take on "quantum vacuum fluctuations" and the supposed ability for these fluctuations to create something out of nothing. This is an important issue for the Cosmological Argument.

Also, I believe some theologians have recently formulated an argument for God's existence BECAUSE OF quantum mechanics. Basically, they argue that- since quantum events are uncertain- there must be an "over-looker" if you will, that controls these events. It's really hard to explain, allow me to quote William Lane Craig:

"Yet quantum indeterminacy can be amplified through various devices to yield an intolerable macroscopic indeterminacy. Consider Schrodinger's infamous cat, a hapless animal imprisoned in a chamber along with a bit of radioactive substance. If, within an hour's time, atomic decay is detected, a relay causes a hammer to break a flask of hydrocyanic acid, thereby killing the cat. But if no decay is detected, the cat remains unharmed.

So -- after an hour's time -- is the cat dead or alive? Quantum theory requires us to say that because atomic decay is intrinsically indeterminate, so, too, is the state of the cat. Its state is a super-position of the two states of being alive and being dead. (It does no good to say that the cat or the measuring device collapses the wave function of the atomic particle. The entire cat cum measuring device cum atomic particle is itself describable in quantum mechanical terms, and so is indeterminate.)

Von Neumann cuts the infinite regress where human consciousness observes the quantum system. Reality thus depends (at least with respect to dynamic properties) on human observers. But this implies that Schrodinger's cat is neither dead nor alive until I open the box and look in, which seems incredible. In any case, my consciousness is linked to a human brain. What collapses the wave function of the physical system, "me observing the cat?" Human observers only perpetuate the regress.

God as Cosmic Observer

The theist may offer a way of escape. Why must the observer be human? Could God act as a Cosmic Observer, who collapses the wave-function in any measurement, or who would collapse any wave-functions in the universe with respect to any possible measurement? God is unembodied Mind, self-consciousness not linked to any material substratum. He cannot be described by the equations of quantum mechanics and so is unaffected by quantum physical indeterminancy. Hence, there is no regress in His case."

The article can be found at http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od172/cosmos172.htm

What are your thoughts on this? Does this have anything to do with quantum mechanics? I hope so. If not, sorry for wasting your time.

Sincerely,

Kyle.

[garthoverman]

04-09-2003 @ 10:53 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=60601#post60601)
Kyle:

Jaltus, what's your take on "quantum vacuum fluctuations" and the supposed ability for these fluctuations to create something out of nothing. This is an important issue for the Cosmological Argument.

Hello, Kyle. I'd like to take a stab at answering your questions.

Vaccum fluctuations are not an instance of "something from nothing," but instead are demonstrative of the fact that there is no such thing as "nothing" in physics. In the instance of the Cosmological Argument, he Big Bang is not necessarily an instance of "something from nothing" either.


Also, I believe some theologians have recently formulated an argument for God's existence BECAUSE OF quantum mechanics. Basically, they argue that- since quantum events are uncertain- there must be an "over-looker" if you will, that controls these events. It's really hard to explain, allow me to quote William Lane Craig:

Seems to me that in the absence of a theory that explains objective reduction of the quantum state, theologians are quick to attempt to fill that gap with their respective gods. I think that these "explanations" don't explain anything, and are simply an instance of deriving a small fortune by starting with a larger one! :wink:


Yet quantum indeterminacy can be amplified through various devices to yield an intolerable macroscopic indeterminacy. Consider Schrodinger's infamous cat, a hapless animal imprisoned in a chamber along with a bit of radioactive substance. If, within an hour's time, atomic decay is detected, a relay causes a hammer to break a flask of hydrocyanic acid, thereby killing the cat. But if no decay is detected, the cat remains unharmed.

So -- after an hour's time -- is the cat dead or alive? Quantum theory requires us to say that because atomic decay is intrinsically indeterminate, so, too, is the state of the cat. Its state is a super-position of the two states of being alive and being dead. (It does no good to say that the cat or the measuring device collapses the wave function of the atomic particle. The entire cat cum measuring device cum atomic particle is itself describable in quantum mechanical terms, and so is indeterminate.)

Von Neumann cuts the infinite regress where human consciousness observes the quantum system. Reality thus depends (at least with respect to dynamic properties) on human observers. But this implies that Schrodinger's cat is neither dead nor alive until I open the box and look in, which seems incredible. In any case, my consciousness is linked to a human brain. What collapses the wave function of the physical system, "me observing the cat?" Human observers only perpetuate the regress.

God as Cosmic Observer

The theist may offer a way of escape. Why must the observer be human? Could God act as a Cosmic Observer, who collapses the wave-function in any measurement, or who would collapse any wave-functions in the universe with respect to any possible measurement? God is unembodied Mind, self-consciousness not linked to any material substratum. He cannot be described by the equations of quantum mechanics and so is unaffected by quantum physical indeterminancy. Hence, there is no regress in His case."

The article can be found at http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od172/cosmos172.htm

What are your thoughts on this? Does this have anything to do with quantum mechanics? I hope so. If not, sorry for wasting your time.

I think it is easy to accept God as the "cosmic observer" if you begin by presupposing His existence as Craig has done here. If one were NOT to presuppose the existence of an "unembodied mind," I see no rule of deduction that would actually ALLOW for the existence of such a mind to be concluded.

Hope you find my answers helpful.

Yours,
Garth

[djnoz]

I think it is really hard to speculate yet, as this is an expanding area of science. However I personally believe that quantum physics is very exciting - and scary. What if (as loads of people have said here) quantum physics is linked to the spiritual realm?

Then again.. imagine in 200 years time a world where quantum physics has been thoroughly explored and understood, and everyday uses for it have been implemented. They'll probably laugh at people like us for linking it to the mysterious 'spiritual realm' - but hey, that's what we do to science we cannot explain.

[Jesnatasus]

If God was the Cosmic Observer, and he sees everything - wouldn't that mean that every wave function in the Universe would collaopse at the instant of Creation?

:shrug:

[lostseptember]

Is anyone familiar with "The Science of God" by Gerald L. Schroeder? He applies time dilation principles to the 1st six days of creation. The results were startling! Unfortunately the book got a little odd toward the end, which casts doubts about all of it in my mind.

[Socrates]

Yes, Schroeder's theory is highly flawed -- see Gerald Schroeder and his new variation on the ‘Day-Age’ theory (www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4355news8-1-2000.asp)

[Pilgrim]

03-14-2003 @ 11:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=35082#post35082)
Socrates:

Pilgrim:Would the dual nature of light, ie. simultaneously particle and wave, fit into a dicussion of QP or is that another area?This is definitely appropriate in this thread!:thumb:


Good! Because I think that has a definate bearing on theology in particular the nature of God. Most times I raise this people never respond but what I'd like to point out is that we have a quantafiable "dual" ontology in nature. That being light as both wave and particle. To my mind that removes the obsticle some present against the trinity when they say it is impossible for something to more than one thing.

Obviously this does not prove that there IS a trinity, it does show that the idea of a trinity is not impossible.

Pilgrim

[nomad]

actually, check the philosophy thread (and the thread 'Invalidating Validity', john powell put some interesting comments there on this very issue).

the problem i have with calling that a 'dual ontology' or whatever is because when science says 'is', they really mean 'acts like'.

take the example of a centaur (which obviously doesn't exist, but...) we have seen humans before, and horses. you look into his face, and he looks like a man. but you walk around from a different angle, and he looks like a horse. is he both a man and a horse? no, he is neither of these two.

what science means by 'light is a wave and a particle' what they mean is that in certain situations, the actions of light match the expected behavior for a particle. and in other situations, the actions of light match the expected behavior for a wave. but, since there are some situations where light does not match the behavior for a particle, it cannot BE a particle; similarly, since there are situations where light does not act as a wave, it cannot BE a wave. it has to be something different from these two.

now, if what you are suggesting is that light consists of two parts, one wave, one particle, i suppose that could be a solution, but then the analogy with the trinity ceases - they are not 'of the same essence' so to speak. otherwise, we can theorize a single 'something', perhaps called a 'wavicle', which accounts for light, but 'is' neither wave or particle.

that may not fully inform you, but perhaps it will lead to a good discussion. since it is a SPECIFIC example though, perhaps it is better dealt with here.

but i'm not an expert.

btw, i'm not too informed on the quantum mechanics of physics, but what about the ZPE field?

http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html

this would mean that maybe you don't really get 'something from nothing', just we don't understand the 'nothing' yet.

[Pilgrim]

From what I read and heard, it is not a case of sometimes one and then sometimes the other. It is an ontological statement about the nature of light traveling simultaneously as particle and wave.

I may well be mistaken about that though. My knowledge of it goes back to a single lecture not in depth study.

[Warcraft3]

Pilgrim:

Sorry to poke my nose in here.........


From what I read and heard, it is not a case of sometimes one and then sometimes the other. It is an ontological statement about the nature of light traveling simultaneously as particle and wave.

I may well be mistaken about that though. My knowledge of it goes back to a single lecture not in depth study.

From the two classes I had which dealt with quantum mechanics this is what Ive learned about the "nature" of light.
All we really know for sure is that under certain circumstances light behaves more like a particle and other times it behaves more like a wave. As far as the nature of the photon itself we really dont know what exactly it is. We have some good math to make predictions with, but the equations dont deal with the description of what the photon is, just how its probably going to act.


Russ

:rockon:

[Wesley's son]

04-23-2003 @ 09:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77101#post77101)
lostseptember:

Is anyone familiar with "The Science of God" by Gerald L. Schroeder? He applies time dilation principles to the 1st six days of creation. The results were startling! Unfortunately the book got a little odd toward the end, which casts doubts about all of it in my mind.


Check out Genesis and the Big Bang. Schroeder explains a bit of that in the book, and the whole text seemed reasonable to me.

[Dilton]

Please, Quantum Physics is a decent research done by serious scientists. Do not mix it with creation or evolution stuff. Leave Q. Phys. alone. It is doing just fine the way it is now, with lots of breakthroughs and if we have lots of christians denying it also, another piphious war would commence and it would be fruitless for all sides.

[Socrates]

Dilton:Please, Quantum Physics is a decent research done by serious scientists.Yes it is -- as I know from personal experience. Do not mix it with creation or evolution stuff. Who was doing so? In fact, despite the evolutionary propaganda that evolution is vital for science, QM (and all branches of REAL science) manage just fine without goo to you via the zoo hypotheses.Leave Q. Phys. alone. It is doing just fine the way it is now, with lots of breakthroughs and if we have lots of christians denying it also, another piphious war would commence and it would be fruitless for all sides.Who is denying it? Don't be so paranoid.

[Socrates]

Steadele:All we really know for sure is that under certain circumstances light behaves more like a particle and other times it behaves more like a wave. As far as the nature of the photon itself we really dont know what exactly it is. We have some good math to make predictions with, but the equations dont deal with the description of what the photon is, just how its probably going to act.That's right. The same is true of electrons and neutrons too, for example. We usually think of them as particles, but they also undergo diffraction. Their wavelength is inversely proportional to the momentum, as given by the de Broglie relation, λ = h/p

[Woman]

I say let's do just that! Mix them all up...QP, creation, theology, philosophy. I mean it's only by an arbitrary and artificial method that we segregate knowledge into various fields anyway.

I got hooked on physics and the larger view after reading Dancing Wu Li Masters. I'm not as easily blown away these days, but the Cosmos still seem to me to be God's backyard.

If and when we can figure out a way for all "ologies" to speak to each other without a lot of diametric opposition, we'll be heading in the right direction.

[lostseptember]

Thanks Wesley's Son, I'll check it out.:smile:

[Socrates]

The author of The Dancing Wu Li Masters, a Gary Zukav, is by no means a physicist, but a journalist. Alas, he forgets that the Copenhagen INTERPRETATION is just that! There are also realist interpretations, and they are fine for chemical applications.

[Butters]

"I got hooked on physics and the larger view after reading Dancing Wu Li Masters"

I loved that book also Woman, how about "The Tao of Physics"?!

[garthoverman]

Yesterday @ 10:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=84449#post84449)
Butters:

"I got hooked on physics and the larger view after reading Dancing Wu Li Masters"

I loved that book also Woman, how about "The Tao of Physics"?!

I read and enjoyed both of those. If you were interested in further reading along those lines, I would recommend anything by John Gribbin. His work is less centered on mysticism, and more focused on modern physics and reality theory in general. Also, he is an actual Ph. D. in contrast to Zukav and Capra.

Edited to add: Capra is actually a Ph.D. too, now that I think about it.

Yours,
Garth

[Undomiel]

I'm not up to snuff on quantum physics, but I have an observation regarding time and creation, so this is perhaps the best thread to put it in:

Since science has proven that something cannot come from nothing, I do believe they have proven the definition of G-d, as He described Himself to Moses, "I am." Before the Big Bang there was....? Where'd the energy come from that created the Big Bang? It was always there. It was eternal. Something cannot come from nothing. The universe itself proclaims the eternal existence of G-d. In fact, He's the only real thing in the universe. The only real thing in the universe, is that quantity that is not governed by time - science will prove this. All else is transistory and illusional. When they discover a functional time machine (which they are very close to doing now - quantum teleportation is just a hop, skip and a jump from manipulating time), they will have succeeded in defining G-d, mathematically.

That's my opinion, of course, but I have to hand it to science for helping me to understand the nature of G-d. Like the paradox of quantum physics, the physical observation changes the physical experiment.

[garthoverman]

Today @ 01:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102050#post102050)
Undomiel:

I'm not up to snuff on quantum physics, but I have an observation regarding time and creation, so this is perhaps the best thread to put it in:

Since science has proven that something cannot come from nothing, I do believe they have proven the definition of G-d, as He described Himself to Moses, "I am." Before the Big Bang there was....?
You should be careful not to equate "our patch of the universe" (which is what came out of the BB) with "the universe" (which contains the BB). "Before the BB" (if such a phrase is even meaningful) there was still the universe.


Where'd the energy come from that created the Big Bang? It was always there. It was eternal. Something cannot come from nothing. The universe itself proclaims the eternal existence of G-d. In fact, He's the only real thing in the universe.
Personally, I think it is true to say that the universe is God.


The only real thing in the universe, is that quantity that is not governed by time - science will prove this.
At the cutting edge right now, it seems that time doesn't really "govern" anything.


All else is transistory and illusional. When they discover a functional time machine (which they are very close to doing now - quantum teleportation is just a hop, skip and a jump from manipulating time)
If by "funtional time machine" you mean some vessel that will transport a living body back into linear time, I think that is impossible for all practical purposes. At the quantum level time is symetric, meaning a particle traveling forwards in time is indistinguishable from its anti-particle traveling in reverse time. To you, this means that the body that you find yourself with at this very moment is as much the result of who you used to be as it is the result of who you're going to be. This doesn't mean that you can grab the end of a wormhole and travel back in time - at least, not if you hope to survive.


they will have succeeded in defining G-d, mathematically.
Which God? Zeus? Zoroaster? Odin? Allah? Krishna?

I asked those questions to show you that in order to know that you've succeeded in "defining God mathematically," you'd need to know the mathematical definition of the other God's to be certain which God you've defined and which Gods you've not.

Yours,
Garth

[Undomiel]

Garth,

I agree, the universe is G-d. Or more appropriately, G-d is.


I mean when they realize how to manipulate time (current transient physical bodies won't survive it), that they will suddenly discover they have defined G-d mathematically. Einstein commented this very thing when he realized he could define an eternal plane of existence with his theory of relativity. Prior to that, he did not believe in a concept such as "eternity", even though he was raised jewish.


Which G-d? "I am." Two of the most powerful and definitive words spoken into existence.

[Socrates]

Amateurish understandings of QM should not be used to justify pantheistic nonsense. Pantheism (God=everything) fails because the Laws of Thermodynamics indicate the the universe had a beginning. The principle of causality says that whatever has a beginning has a cause. For more information, see If God created the universe, then who created God? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3791.asp)

[Undomiel]

I'm not a pantheist. I just believe He is who He says He is. "I am" denotes eternal existence. Omnipresence. Omnipotence. There's no indication in scripture that He didn't create countless universes before this one. Even science can't disprove an eternal universe, to do so would be to deny "something can't come from nothing" and you know where that would lead - if something can come from nothing then the traditional interpretation of creation is possible afterall.

I believe scientists are discovering G-d in their efforts to understand the universe. One day, they will find themselves with theoretical explanations for how it all works that read like scripture. It would be just like G-d to have that sector of our population who traditionally believe He doesn't exist, be the ones to provide the greatest explanation for why He does exist and not realize it until they've nearly proven conclusively that He doesn't exist. Then KERPOW. :idea:

[garthoverman]

Today @ 01:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102638#post102638)
Socrates:

Amateurish understandings of QM should not be used to justify pantheistic nonsense. Pantheism (God=everything) fails because the Laws of Thermodynamics indicate the the universe had a beginning.
You, like many others, confuse "this patch of space-time" with "the real universe." They are not equal. The Laws of Thermodynamics do not necessarily indicate that the real universe had a beginning since the real universe is likely not a closed system. Furthermore, since the universe is All That Is by defintion, it would immediately contain its beginning were such a beginning to exist, which results in a contradiction. Still further, a beginning requires a "before" yet "before the universe" is as meaningless as "100 km north of the north pole."

It seems when you spoke of "amateurish understanding," you must have been projecting. :poke:

Yours,
Garth

[John Boy]

Just to pick up on Jesnatasus's point, above:


Jesnatasus:
If God was the Cosmic Observer, and he sees everything - wouldn't that mean that every wave function in the Universe would collaopse at the instant of Creation?

If I understand correctly, Hawking said pretty much the same thing in one of his recent books (Universe in a Nutshell, IIRC). While it doesn't have any direct bearing on the existence/non-existence of God(s), per se, it does seem to limit the omniscience of such a diety.


Socrates:
Amateurish understandings of QM should not be used to justify pantheistic nonsense.
I don't think QM should be used to justify theistic nonsense, either. But, that's just me... :wink:


Pantheism (God=everything) fails because the Laws of Thermodynamics indicate the the universe had a beginning. The principle of causality says that whatever has a beginning has a cause. For more information, see If God created the universe, then who created God?
Does it also say that the cause can be "self-created" or "self-caused", or that the cause even needs a Creator directing it? Lightning has a cause, but, unless you wish to invoke Thor, Zeus, Jehova, or any other diety-of-your-choice as personally directing those bolts, I don't see how your point applies to the existence/non-existence of God(s).

Just to pick up on the link from AiG to which you posted:


Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
The universe has a beginning.
Therefore the universe has a cause.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3791.asp
You mean to tell me you don't see the logical, um, make that QUANTUM leap you make with this syllogism?

Here's another one, for you:
Socrates is mortal.
My cat is mortal.
Therefore Socrates is my cat.
Or, just for fun:
God is love.
Love is blind.
Ray Charles is blind.
Therefore God is Ray Charles.

See? Syllogisms are fun! But they also only work if each of your premises is absolutely correct AND logically sequential. Assertions of the postulate's truth just aren't good enough, I'm afraid.

I mean, since the universe has a beginning (by which I mean a particular point in which time and space began) it therefore follows that God(s) exist and caused it to happen? Did I miss something? :huh:

Sorry, Socrates, but your syllogism you provided seems a little, um, silly. (Why, oh why, did I have to go and say that?)

Take care. :yummy:

[Undomiel]

I don't think QM should be used to justify theistic nonsense, either. But, that's just me...

:bawl:

I don't think it's nonsense. It makes perfect sense to me. :teeth: And I'm definitely enjoying learning quantum physics. What an interesting subject. Currently, I'm attempting to understand string theory. I've only gotten some of the rudimentary stuff - proton shells, neutron shells, hadron and lepton strings, etc.

[John Boy]

Undomiel:
I don't think it's nonsense. It makes perfect sense to me. And I'm definitely enjoying learning quantum physics. What an interesting subject. Currently, I'm attempting to understand string theory. I've only gotten some of the rudimentary stuff - proton shells, neutron shells, hadron and lepton strings, etc.
It is definitely an area of interest for me, as well, but, alas, only as a spectator. The math involved tends to make my poor ol' brain go a little swimmy. Stephen Hawking and several other writers seems to do a good job of describing the results of QM to the point where I begin to think I almost understand what he is saying. Well, until I try to explain what I just read, then I realize I know just enough to know I don't know enough. Sigh... :no:

For this reason, I look forward to Jaltus's response.

Personally, I found Frajita Capra and Gary Zurkov's books a little too "New-agey" for my tastes, but they were not without their charm.

Take care. :smile:

[Omega Red]

01-31-2003 @ 02:34 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=3690#post3690)
Jaltus:

If you have questions about QM, I am the person around here to ask.

Me boss used QM in a throw away comment about the non-existence of God. He referred me to a conversation he had (no journal reference - typical) with a guy that reckoned he could demonstrate matter appearing from nothing (no energy??). It wasn't until a few days later that this idea suddenly seemed either really daft or a major miracle.

Seeing as it wasn't April 1st, I was wondering what your take on it was.

[Socrates]

Today @ 07:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=107125#post107125)
Omega Red:

Me boss used QM in a throw away comment about the non-existence of God. He referred me to a conversation he had (no journal reference - typical) with a guy that reckoned he could demonstrate matter appearing from nothing (no energy??). It wasn't until a few days later that this idea suddenly seemed either really daft or a major miracle.

Seeing as it wasn't April 1st, I was wondering what your take on it was.

He could be talking about virtual particles. According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, it is impossible to measure energy and time together with perfect precision. The more accurately time is measured, the more imprecise the energy is, and vice versa. In the formula, it is Δt.ΔE>=h/4π

This is very tiny for ordinary situations, but is very significant at the atomic level. And it means that a particle of mass given by Einstein's formula m = E/c^2 can exist for a short time given by h/(4πΔE). So the larger the particle, the shorted the time it can exist before it disappears to keep the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy. So this is totally useless to explain the origin of something as massive as the universe, because the time it could exist would be vanishingly small.

I'm afraid your boss is typical of village atheist types who grab hold of anything to prop up their faith without understanding it.

[Lobstrosity]

Today @ 02:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=107135#post107135)
Socrates:

I'm afraid your boss is typical of village atheist types who grab hold of anything to prop up their faith without understanding it.
Now, now, let's not be unreasonably hasty or offensive, here. This is typical of a lot of people, independent of religious beliefs. I've seen a lot of uninformed people prattle on about the amazing implications of QM. They sound like they got their scientific grounding by reading the back of a cereal box, yet they act as if they're experts in the field. These were by no means all atheists. For example, I've heard someone use QM as a way for the soul to exchange information with the brain, thereby granting us our free will. The justification was that the soul is intangible, so we need some of that quantum indeterminacy in order to get to it (never mind that this person clearly had no understanding of what is meant by quantum indeterminacy). I see that as an example of a theist-type "who grabs hold of anything to prop up his faith without understanding it." Why don't we just agree that there are just in general a lot of people out there who latch onto scientific theories they don't even bother trying to understand?

[Omega Red]

"I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics. Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, ' But how can it be like that?' because you will go 'down the drain' into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that."
--Richard Feynman

[Omega Red]

Yesterday @ 07:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=107135#post107135)
Socrates:

I'm afraid your boss is typical of village atheist types who grab hold of anything to prop up their faith without understanding it.

He won the Nobel prize for Chemistry in 1996, has extensive education in math/chemistry. Okay so he's heading towards retirement, but I wouldn't dare call him a village atheist. Maybe he's slightly misguided perhaps?!:thumb:

[Undomiel]

Okay, so according to the law of conservation and energy, eventually a particle will disappear. But uh, where does it go? Nothing DISAPPEARS. Nothing APPEARS. Things don't vanish, they just change state. Correct?

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 10:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=107694#post107694)
Undomiel:

Okay, so according to the law of conservation and energy, eventually a particle will disappear. But uh, where does it go? Nothing DISAPPEARS. Nothing APPEARS. Things don't vanish, they just change state. Correct?

Okay I havent had any formal classes dealing with virtual particles, so correct me if Im wrong here.........


As far as I can remember from the little I have learned about virtual particles, they do not contradict the laws of conservation because they are virtual particles. They are somewhat different from normal particles and have different properties.

Someone correct me if Im wrong here. I did not really do any formal work with virtual particles. None of my classes got into it in any depth so I may just be spouting nonsense here.



Russ

[Omega Red]

Today @ 12:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=107694#post107694)
Undomiel:

Okay, so according to the law of conservation and energy, eventually a particle will disappear. But uh, where does it go? Nothing DISAPPEARS. Nothing APPEARS. Things don't vanish, they just change state. Correct?

A real particle can change states, emit photons if excited enough, or hang about as is. The Universe is expanding, so maybe they will just float about forever and get attracted to the nearest gravitional well (sun, planet, black hole). The real exciting stuff is the hunt for dark matter.

[Undomiel]

Well from what I've read, dark matter is more prevalent than alot of other particles. What do they hope to prove with it?

[Omega Red]

It's really elusive and holds the galaxies together. From a Christian perspective I read this (http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/darkmatter.html), interesting postulation that Newton & Keplers Laws might need modifying. If it's there and as its presence isn't revealed through microlensing or by radiation emission/excitation it's bound to have some useful properties.

[Socrates]

05-26-2003 @ 11:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=107628#post107628)
Omega Red:

He won the Nobel prize for Chemistry in 1996, has extensive education in math/chemistry.

That would be one of Smalley, Curl or Kroto, who won the Prize for their discovery of fullerenes. And this was indeed a fantastic achievement. But it doesn't alter the fact that this person was speaking nonsense about QM. I've explained this further at www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=146108#post146108 After all, they used spectroscopy to confirm the identity of the fullerenes, and this is a QM phenomenon and anything but acausal. After all, the spectral lines clearly had a CAUSE — the energy states of buckminsterfullerene given the bond strengths, atomic masses and the unique Ih point group.


Okay so he's heading towards retirement, but I wouldn't dare call him a village atheist. Maybe he's slightly misguided perhaps?!:thumb:

Possibly. But his off-the-cuff quip was no different in principle from Murray Gell-Mann railing against creation, with a blatant argumentum ad verecundiam. But his Nobel prize for his theories on quarks hardly makes him an authority of creation v evolution or the age of the earth!

[Omega Red]

Today @ 02:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=146217#post146217)
Socrates:



That would be one of Smalley, Curl or Kroto, who won the Prize for their discovery of fullerenes. And this was indeed a fantastic achievement. But it doesn't alter the fact that this person was speaking nonsense about QM. I've explained this further at www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=146108#post146108 After all, they used spectroscopy to confirm the identity of the fullerenes, and this is a QM phenomenon and anything but acausal. After all, the spectral lines clearly had a CAUSE — the energy states of buckminsterfullerene given the bond strengths, atomic masses and the unique Ih point group.



Possibly. But his off-the-cuff quip was no different in principle from Murray Gell-Mann railing against creation, with a blatant argumentum ad verecundiam. But his Nobel prize for his theories on quarks hardly makes him an authority of creation v evolution or the age of the earth!

Cheers Socrates. I am beginning to think that he is just using anything to prop his beliefs up. Although I am not so convinced that he is a typical representative of atheists - I hope not anyway. His use of the fullerene discovery to highlight metaphysical naturalism was quite unexpected (you should have been there!). Been trying to find out how much of a quantum vacuum is free from energy? Can a complete absence of anything propagate matter or energy according to QM?

[Socrates]

Today @ 04:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=146255#post146255)
Omega Red:

Cheers Socrates. I am beginning to think that he is just using anything to prop his beliefs up. Although I am not so convinced that he is a typical representative of atheists - I hope not anyway.

:highfive: I hope not too. It would be fun to work with him. I remember when fullerenes were first discovered.


His use of the fullerene discovery to highlight metaphysical naturalism was quite unexpected (you should have been there!).

Amazing, huh? But it just goes to show that even top scientists are laymen outside their own field. :huh:


Been trying to find out how much of a quantum vacuum is free from energy? Can a complete absence of anything propagate matter or energy according to QM?

Yeah, people who talk about a quantum fluctuation forget that there must be something to fluctuate. But the vacuum they are talking about is certainly not "nothing", but a sea of virtual particles.

William Lane Craig has a good article The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe (http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html) which goes into this more (even if it is too big-bang–friendly :shocked:).

[Fedmahn Kassad]

Socrates: Amazing, huh? But it just goes to show that even top scientists are laymen outside their own field.

:rofl:

Oh, the irony. If even “top scientists are laymen outside their own field”, what does that make former chemists who no longer work as scientists? We know for certain that they are laymen outside their own fields and we can take everything they say with a pillar of salt. Can they still claim to be experts even in their own fields? I guess it depends on how long it has been since they were doing active research, as well as how quickly their fields tend to change. In any case, if a scientist has been several years out of the lab (unless of course they are still directing research), I would no longer consider that scientist to be an expert. After all, would I go and see an M.D. for expert medical advice if they stopped practicing medicine 5 years ago?

Anyway, in the future, Socrates, let’s not forget that you are just a layman when you are discussing science with the real scientists on the board. We might cut you a little slack if the subject is chemistry.

FK

:rofl: