Quantum Mechanics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Originally posted by knight4christ8

The outcome of measurement is ALWAYS unpredictable and therefore even God, according to them, could not know what a particle is going to do when measured.

Thank you for reminding me of the popular "scientific" view of subatomic uncertainty.

I remember being ticked off when I read Stephen Hawkings saying that very thing. It is sad how such a smart physicist can miss something so basic to logic.

Even on a super-simplistic level, using nothing more than a mere Arminian (gasp!) understanding of God's Sovereignty, Hawkings' logic falls apart. If God exists outside of time, then it is no harder for God to see a future event that will be measured than it is for Him to see a past event that has been measured. (So they shouldn't even have to be Calvinists to see that they are wrong.)

The physicists may then retort that it's nonsense to assume God could be outside of time. But they forget that *they* are the ones who started speaking about time as a "4th dimension" in the first place! They recognize time as integrally intwined with the fabric of space itself, thus the term, "space-time continuum". Now, if time is actually a "thing" that is intertwined with space, then it is just as much a part of creation as space is. And if we postulate a deity that created space, we necessarily postulate a deity that created time. And if He created time, then He is necessarily outside of it, and should be able to see the end just as clearly as the beginning.

Even postulating a no-name deity, and even allowing a mere Arminian view of such a god's sovereignty, the physicists are still proved incorrect in a very simple and basic way. Their logic stinks. God most certainly DOES know what every subatomic particle will do, long before it ever happens.




[Edited on 6-13-2005 by biblelighthouse]

I agree with you, but I think the point where we disagree with most physicists has more to do with the Copenhagen Interpretation, and not QM itself.
 
Quantum Mech. is simply a statistical way to predict subatomic motion and position where instrumentation cannot measure it simultaneously - because the method we have to do so itself influences the measurements being taken. Therefore, a statistical predictor QM has been developed.

In simple language it predicts what we cannot directly measure without interfering with the measurement itself. In other words our technology cannot handle it.

From this arises a philosophical system about things popping into and out of existence. The problem grows because many develop what occurs at the nano level and bring out implications on the macro level.

In a way it is not a whole lot different than saying a coin has a chance of 50/50 to be heads or tails, and then developing a whole philosophy on the idea of chance. When in fact chance is merely statistical language and not a force or thing that exists itself.

Ldh
 
Originally posted by Larry Hughes
Quantum Mech. is simply a statistical way to predict subatomic motion and position where instrumentation cannot measure it simultaneously - because the method we have to do so itself influences the measurements being taken. Therefore, a statistical predictor QM has been developed.

In simple language it predicts what we cannot directly measure without interfering with the measurement itself. In other words our technology cannot handle it.

From this arises a philosophical system about things popping into and out of existence. The problem grows because many develop what occurs at the nano level and bring out implications on the macro level.

In a way it is not a whole lot different than saying a coin has a chance of 50/50 to be heads or tails, and then developing a whole philosophy on the idea of chance. When in fact chance is merely statistical language and not a force or thing that exists itself.

Ldh

Right or wrong, that just sounds cool.
 
When I was in quantitative chemical analysis, one of my college chemistry minor classes, this theory both fascinated me but even as an unbeliever the philosophical extension drawn from it seemed absurd (popping in and out of existence). You have to be real careful what QM is saying and what it is not under explaning real physical Vs. statistical probabilities. Some of you that have taken chemistry probably recall that QM is the theory which influences the atom structure. The old atom structure in classic chemistry, drawn from macro physics, was the electron orbital around the protons and neutrons (like the planets around the sun) structure or spherical shell orbitals. Under QM and the probability density calculations (statistically where we might expect to find an electron) - the visual that one are various.

For example instead of a circular planet typ orbit, one of these statistical probability density (area about where one might expect to find an electron) area at a particular energy level is a sort of mirrored tear dropped area of "œprobability" around the nucleous. In which the "œprobability" of the electron at this energy level (P) of being "œhere" (in that density cluster) about the nucleus is within these tear paralleled shaped clouds areas if you will. These are merely statistical probability density areas bound mathematically/statistically by the predicting calculation. The bounds are not real physical per se.

You may find this (below) helpful in describing the often confused difference in the phenomena as in real physical Vs. the statistcal predictor. Its not mine but an excert.

Ldh

Why was quantum mechanics developed?

In the early 20th century some experiments produced results which could not be explained by classical physics (the science developed by Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, etc.). For instance, it was well known that electrons orbited the nucleus of an atom. However, if they did so in a manner which resembled the planets orbiting the sun, classical physics predicted that the electrons would spiral in and crash into the nucleus within a fraction of a second. Obviously that doesn't happen, or life as we know it would not exist. (Chemistry depends upon the interaction of the electrons in atoms, and life depends upon chemistry). That incorrect prediction, along with some other experiments that classical physics could not explain, showed scientists that something new was needed to explain science at the atomic level.

If classical physics is wrong, why do we still use it?

Classical physics is a flawed theory, but it is only dramatically flawed when dealing with the very small (atomic size, where quantum mechanics is used) or the very fast (near the speed of light, where relativity takes over). For everyday things, which are much larger than atoms and much slower than the speed of light, classical physics does an excellent job. Plus, it is much easier to use than either quantum mechanics or relativity (each of which require an extensive amount of math).

What is the importance of quantum mechanics?
The wave-particle duality of light and matter

In 1690 Christiaan Huygens theorized that light was composed of waves, while in 1704 Isaac Newton explained that light was made of tiny particles. Experiments supported each of their theories. However, neither a completely-particle theory nor a completely-wave theory could explain all of the phenomena associated with light! So scientists began to think of light as both a particle and a wave. In 1923 Louis de Broglie hypothesized that a material particle could also exhibit wavelike properties, and in 1927 it was shown (by Davisson and Germer) that electrons can indeed behave like waves.

How can something be both a particle and a wave at the same time? For one thing, it is incorrect to think of light as a stream of particles moving up and down in a wavelike manner. Actually, light and matter exist as particles; <<<what behaves like a wave is the probability of where that particle will be>>>. The reason light sometimes <<<<appears>>>> to act as a wave is because <<<<we are noticing the accumulation of many of the light particles distributed over the probabilities of where each particle could be>>>>.

For instance, suppose we had a dart-throwing machine that had a 5% chance of hitting the bulls-eye and a 95% chance of hitting the outer ring and no chance of hitting any other place on the dart board. Now, suppose we let the machine throw 100 darts, keeping all of them stuck in the board. We can see each individual dart (so we know they behave like a particle) but we can also see a pattern on the board of a large ring of darts surrounding a small cluster in the middle. This pattern is the accumulation of the individual darts over the probabilities of where each dart could have landed, and represents the 'wavelike' behavior of the darts.
 
Thanks Larry. That is a lot of good info. I apologize, but I skipped through most of it.

My main point is that the Copenhagen interpretation is actually being used by some Arminians to support their belief that free-will can actually exist. If God cannot determine what a aprticular atom is going to do then His sovereignty falls apart. I seem to lean toward Bohm's interpretation, though this has problems in and of itself (i.e. it must deny Einstein's claim that light's speed is constant). I am all for this though b/c it also helps me explain how we can live in a 10,000 yr. old universe and be recieving light that, if light's speed has always been the same, most scientists claim to be reaching earth after millions of years of travel. In a hurry . . . hope this made sense.
 
Originally posted by knight4christ8
Thanks Larry. That is a lot of good info. I apologize, but I skipped through most of it.

My main point is that the Copenhagen interpretation is actually being used by some Arminians to support their belief that free-will can actually exist. If God cannot determine what a aprticular atom is going to do then His sovereignty falls apart. I seem to lean toward Bohm's interpretation, though this has problems in and of itself (i.e. it must deny Einstein's claim that light's speed is constant). I am all for this though b/c it also helps me explain how we can live in a 10,000 yr. old universe and be recieving light that, if light's speed has always been the same, most scientists claim to be reaching earth after millions of years of travel. In a hurry . . . hope this made sense.

Arminians will only shoot themselves in the foot if they try to use science to defend heresy. Free will is not taught in Scripture. Therefore it will not be taught in natural revelation either. And even so, if nature were entirely random, that doesn't explain how abstract entities like logic and conscious thought are affected by it. They have no grounds to move from the material to the immaterial.

[Edited on 7-14-2005 by puritansailor]
 
I completely agree Patrick. Though, I cannot seperate the two in this case(i.e. material and non-material). An uncaused event in any realm allows for the destruction of reason itself . . . thus no distinction between the infinite and the finite . . . destroying God as well as all consciousness. No way! QM will come around.

You are right! Arminians are shooting themselves in the foot, and sooner or later science will come to unveil their shameful deciet and ignorance. :pilgrim:
 
http://www.commonsensescience.org/

Is a site that I have found interesting, however my knowledge is just a level below where it needs to be to fully understand.

The central concept is that the QM is unnecessary and one can do better than QM is able to do with Classical Mechanics. The problem, that cause a need for QM was a faulty model of the atom. Once this is rectified E&M is all one needs to go as far as one could want to go.

CT
 
Originally posted by Larry Hughes
Quantum Mech. is simply a statistical way to predict subatomic motion and position where instrumentation cannot measure it simultaneously - because the method we have to do so itself influences the measurements being taken. Therefore, a statistical predictor QM has been developed.

In simple language it predicts what we cannot directly measure without interfering with the measurement itself. In other words our technology cannot handle it.

From this arises a philosophical system about things popping into and out of existence. The problem grows because many develop what occurs at the nano level and bring out implications on the macro level.

In a way it is not a whole lot different than saying a coin has a chance of 50/50 to be heads or tails, and then developing a whole philosophy on the idea of chance. When in fact chance is merely statistical language and not a force or thing that exists itself.

Ldh

Contrary to popular belief, QM is not merely a statistical prediction of position that cannot measured due to lack of ability. The statistical nature of variables like momentum and position is not a technological limit, but a theoretical limit. That is, in principle, if you follow the mathematical theory that underlies QM, you are logically forced to say that the the position is not a single value (i.e., x = 2m), but a range of values that vary in intensity (i.e., a function). Anyone who knows their mathematics will understand the difference between a point value and a function. This is why it has philosophical implications. It overturns the classical view of position and certainty on the subatomic level. The whole point is that the uncertainty is seen as a feature of the natural world, rather than due to lack of knowledge or ability. Yet, it is not to be understood as nature's failure to know, or even the inability of a "God's-eye perspective" to know the proper position. Thus, it is a mistake for any to try to use it to limit God. Instead, the position cannot be described in a single value, yet certainly not in such a way that God could not know (of course). It is hard to explain, and I am not very good at explaining.

Please, if you want to talk about quantum mechanics, study it from a reliable, accurate source. I recommend Fritz Rohrlich's From Paradox to Reality. One thing that really annoys me is when theologians talk about a science that they have not studied. This is why both "creation scientists" and those who hold the "framework hypothesis" both really tick me off. Some from both groups try to combine theology and science without ever knowing what science is.

As a Van Tillian, I believe that QM, if it is true, puts to death the Enlightenment's Modernist view of science. It kills Modernism's attempt to establish one comprehensive system for explaining everything scientifically. It allows for paradox, which forces man to face his finitude and sinfulness.

Greg, Van Til will set you straight on QM.

Brian

[Edited on 9-6-2005 by cultureshock]

[Edited on 9-6-2005 by cultureshock]
 
Most interpretations of QM maintain that a particle has a superposition (spinning both up and down), but then when measured takes on either a totally up or a down spin (actually dif. polarizations, but spin helps the visualization). This is said to be an uncaused event. Nothing determines whether this particle will go one way or the other.
It may be better to say that they don't know what determines the spin. They've done experiments that have shown there is a connection between quantum particles, and that you can determine which spin one particle will have based on the other particle.

I think the experiment went something like this...

They set up two sites in different states with boxes that contained a quantum particle. They could turn on and off a quantum particle in the box and measure the effect on the particle in the other box (on/off just makes it easier to explain). It turned out that the quantum particles always had the opposite state. When the one was turned on, the other would go off - when the one was turned off, the other would go on.

So they do think there is something controlling the states of quantum particles, they just don't know what it is. That's where string theory has come in to play.

[Edited on 9-6-2005 by larryjf]

[Edited on 9-6-2005 by larryjf]
 
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
QM is way over my head. I suspect that there are theological problems with this approach to understanding reality. But as a Star Trek and Michael Crichton science fiction fan (Timeline, yeah!) I do enjoy a good quantum yarn.

:banana: I just finished Timeline. I found the movie and that led me to look for the book (just happened a friend of mine had it...the two are nothing alike).

And as for Bakula...well, let's just say he was the one man my mother and I could both agree on ;)
 
"For instance, suppose we had a dart-throwing machine that had a 5% chance of hitting the bulls-eye and a 95% chance of hitting the outer ring and no chance of hitting any other place on the dart board. Now, suppose we let the machine throw 100 darts, keeping all of them stuck in the board. We can see each individual dart (so we know they behave like a particle) but we can also see a pattern on the board of a large ring of darts surrounding a small cluster in the middle. This pattern is the accumulation of the individual darts over the probabilities of where each dart could have landed, and represents the 'wavelike' behavior of the darts."

This illustration and your previous explanation fall short of QM as it does not explain the results of the double-slit experiment.
 
The August issue of IEEE Spectrum has an article on the atom laser which relies on QM to work. "In the wide wierd world of quantum mechanics, the atom laser is out there on the fringe. Instead of photons, it shoots out ultracooled atoms, atoms so cold that they no longer move or interact like particles and instead behave just like waves." The author claims it can be used as an extremely accurate accelerometer for navigation or a very sensitive interferometer among other uses. Regardless of the ultimate truth of QM, it is useful from an engineering standpoint.
 
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Calvinism is not determinism.

Calvinism is determinism. Soft-determinism to be technically accurate. This is certainly not to be confused with fatalism (I think that might be what you are referring to. ???)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top