Christian Quantum Physics

[TemperateSeaIsland]

Many people people both Atheist and Theist try to put on an interpretation of QM as it tends to be so counter-intuitive in our classical world, I think this is a mistake.

 

[Cabal]

The response I am looking for is the one I've been getting..

I am looking to learn about quantum physics & did not have a clue where to start.. so I thought I'd ask here because I knew there would be people here who could help..

And everyone's been very helpful & I thank you..

That's cool then. Sorry to be cagey, but often people don't take kindly to their ideas being trounced (e.g. everyone I've encountered proposing the "frequency"-type ideas has usually had a massive persecution complex attached with it) and scientists can often be a bit too... direct when it comes to this

There is something that God wants me to know through this & I figure He'll reveal it to me as I do.

Maybe it will deal with the unseen being more real than the seen..

Possibly - again I wouldn't necessarily look to find direct evidence of God via science, as science is an attempt to explain via naturalistic means, so gods tend to not be part of a theory! That said, quantum mechanics is as utterly mindblowing as God is, so in that sense it can be enjoyed for what it is without needing to use it for any dodgy explanations

Maybe it will be how to work that wormhole - I wish!

Again, not wishing to burst too many bubbles, but wormholes are more of a general relativity thing, not quantum mechanics (and those theories are currently not unified, which is an ongoing problem in physics). And wormholes are unlikely to be formed unless you've got a couple of spare neutron stars lying around.

There is a quantum mechanical process called teleportation but it's a fairly specific process involving instantaneous transfer of properties rather than matter blinking from one point to another.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Many people people both Atheist and Theist try to put on an interpretation of QM as it tends to be so counter-intuitive in our classical world, I think this is a mistake.

I agree. I read the Tao of physics many years ago and found the attempt to connect QM and Eastern mysticism very unsatisfactory at best and silly at worst.

A problem for people promoting such approaches is the development of new theory. For example, what is now considered the standard model was not completely accepted when the Tao of Physics was written.
Standard Model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
because the J/ψ has not yet been discovered
J/ψ meson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This caused Capra to base some of his analysis on models that are no longer accepted.
Still some physicists like the book and others don't

The Tao of Physics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Capra wrote
Physicists do not need mysticism, and mystics do not need physics, but humanity needs both.

I agree with the first part of the statement at least.

IMO trying to make Christian Interpretations of QM is likely to have similar issues.

Religion is irrational and mystical. QM may seem irrational and mystical because it is so far from our intuitive understand of the classical world as you point out but IMO there is an underlying rationality to QM that may only be clear with a deep understanding of the math and physics involved.

 

[Cabal]

QM may seem irrational and mystical because it is so far from our intuitive understand of the classical world as you point out but IMO there is an underlying rationality to QM that may only be clear with a deep understanding of the math and physics involved.

Agreed.

Think there was one short-lived poster around here a few years ago that tried to imply that atheists shouldn't accept quantum mechanics because of the inherent uncertainty and I remember making the point to them that despite there existing an inherent uncertainty, that doesn't prevent us from obtaining consistent and reproducible results on a statistical level. Sure, you can't tell exactly where a photon going through a double-slit will go - but the resulting overall interference pattern will still be the same for identical experimental conditions. S-orbitals are always spherical, etc.

I often think it's a matter of terminology that leads people to make these bizarre quantum claims. I think some just hear "uncertainty" and then think that's a rationale for justifying anything.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Agreed.

Think there was one short-lived poster around here a few years ago that tried to imply that atheists shouldn't accept quantum mechanics because of the inherent uncertainty and I remember making the point to them that despite there existing an inherent uncertainty, that doesn't prevent us from obtaining consistent and reproducible results on a statistical level. Sure, you can't tell exactly where a photon going through a double-slit will go - but the resulting overall interference pattern will still be the same for identical experimental conditions. S-orbitals are always spherical, etc.

I often think it's a matter of terminology that leads people to make these bizarre quantum claims. I think some just hear "uncertainty" and then think that's a rationale for justifying anything.

Right and a charm quark is neither not witty and smooth talking and it won't put you under a spell.

 

[Cabal]

Right and a charm quark is neither not witty and smooth talking and it won't put you under a spell.

Been there - the number of smarmy comments I've observed from people who CLEARLY didn't grasp the joke behind the name "God particle" is ridiculous.

I can only imagine the chaos that would have resulted if the top and bottom quarks were named "truth" and "beauty" instead as was suggested at the time of their discovery.

But thankfully not. Particle physics seems to have quite overt humour (think it'd have to, really!) and I personally find the notion that there's a particle with the quark combination "up-strange-bottom" hilarious.

 

[lucaspa]

I cant even imagine what a 'Christian perspective' would be, tho.

For a while there was the concept that God, as universal observer, decreed what reality was. That is, for Schroedinger's Cat God was the observer and thus obviated the extended "dead or alive" state. Paul Davies was one physicist who advocated this idea.

 

[lucaspa]

Agreed.

Think there was one short-lived poster around here a few years ago that tried to imply that atheists shouldn't accept quantum mechanics because of the inherent uncertainty and I remember making the point to them that despite there existing an inherent uncertainty, that doesn't prevent us from obtaining consistent and reproducible results on a statistical level. Sure, you can't tell exactly where a photon going through a double-slit will go - but the resulting overall interference pattern will still be the same for identical experimental conditions.

Right. As a group quantum events are predictable. As individual photons or electrons or whatever, they are not. Kenneth Miller makes some interesting theological deductions from this in Chapters 6 and 7 of his Finding Darwin's God.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Agreed.

Think there was one short-lived poster around here a few years ago that tried to imply that atheists shouldn't accept quantum mechanics because of the inherent uncertainty and I remember making the point to them that despite there existing an inherent uncertainty, that doesn't prevent us from obtaining consistent and reproducible results on a statistical level. Sure, you can't tell exactly where a photon going through a double-slit will go - but the resulting overall interference pattern will still be the same for identical experimental conditions. S-orbitals are always spherical, etc.

I often think it's a matter of terminology that leads people to make these bizarre quantum claims. I think some just hear "uncertainty" and then think that's a rationale for justifying anything.

That's like saying we shouldn't accept probability theory because of uncertainty.

However behaviors across large numbers of events are prefectly predictable (otherwise casinos wouldn't be such predictable and regular money-makers).

No uncertainty isn't an issue.

QM is just a fairly modest generalization of probability theory.

The problem is that that modest generalization ends up with processes that violate all our intuitions about how objects ought to behave (even those involved in random processes).

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That's like saying we shouldn't accept probability theory because of uncertainty.

However behaviors across large numbers of events are prefectly predictable (otherwise casinos wouldn't be such predictable and regular money-makers).

No uncertainty isn't an issue.

QM is just a fairly modest generalization of probability theory.

The problem is that that modest generalization ends up with processes that violate all our intuitions about how objects ought to behave (even those involved in random processes).

And it's this violation that makes people baulk at quantum mechanics. If they can't imagine it, or if it goes against what they can imagine, then it must be false.
Oh, fleshy humans, I opine for thee.

 

[lucaspa]

QM is just a fairly modest generalization of probability theory.

It's way beyond that.

The problem is that that modest generalization ends up with processes that violate all our intuitions about how objects ought to behave (even those involved in random processes).

I definitely agree there. It's not so much "intuitions" as "previous observations and experience". What happens at the quantum level violates what we have been observing at the macro level for millenia. Since it violates the experience of most people, it's not too surprising that many people reject QM. We do tend to place our own experience above that of others.

In this case, however, we have to accept that our experience is limited and the data is what it is. The universe really does behave weirdly at the quantum level.

 

[Chesterton]

And it's this violation that makes people baulk at quantum mechanics. If they can't imagine it, or if it goes against what they can imagine, then it must be false.
Oh, fleshy humans, I opine for thee.

Wait, what?? I thought this was a Christian argument.

 

[lucaspa]

Wait, what?? I thought this was a Christian argument.

Lots of people from all worldviews baulk at QM. It has nothing to do with religion, but with putting aside our own extensive personal experiences at the macro level and accepting the experiences of people conducting experiments at the quantum level.

All of us, of course, could do the quantum experiments if we wanted to. In practicality, we don't because of time, money, equipment, space, learning to do the experiments, etc. So we have to accept that the experience of a few people really are intersubjective and would be our experiences if we could do this. Even tho the experiences at the quantum level contradict our experiences of the macro level.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

It's way beyond that.

No. It is actually quite modest.

The net effect of the modest change in the theory is quite far-reaching though.

It is just a matter of taking the same basic structure and changing the topos you are working in from a classical topos equivalent to SET to a non-classical topos not equivalent to SET within which classical logic ceases to hold and you have to move to an intuitionistic logic.

So you take your basic probability theory and rather than working in a logic of sets you work in a logic of (I believe) vector spaces.

I definitely agree there. It's not so much "intuitions" as "previous observations and experience". What happens at the quantum level violates what we have been observing at the macro level for millenia. Since it violates the experience of most people, it's not too surprising that many people reject QM. We do tend to place our own experience above that of others.

In this case, however, we have to accept that our experience is limited and the data is what it is. The universe really does behave weirdly at the quantum level.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No. It is actually quite modest.

Quantum mechanics isn't just a modest statistical take on a classical problem. It's a complete overhaul of the mathematical and conceptual underpinnings of how we understand physics. Beyond the broad implications (destroying the pre-1900 idea that science had discovered all there was), it revolutionised chemical, atomic, nuclear, and particle physics.

It's more than just modest statistics.

The net effect of the modest change in the theory is quite far-reaching though.

It is just a matter of taking the same basic structure and changing the topos you are working in from a classical topos equivalent to SET to a non-classical topos not equivalent to SET within which classical logic ceases to hold and you have to move to an intuitionistic logic.

I disagree that you have to move to intuitionist logic, if only because I don't think you can reject the law of excluded middle outright. Either way, quantum mechanics is a mathematical treatment of atomic systems under certain premises. It involves probability, sure, but it is not itself simply a modest application of it.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Quantum mechanics isn't just a modest statistical take on a classical problem. It's a complete overhaul of the mathematical and conceptual underpinnings of how we understand physics. Beyond the broad implications (destroying the pre-1900 idea that science had discovered all there was), it revolutionised chemical, atomic, nuclear, and particle physics.

It's more than just modest statistics.

It is a modest mathematical change in the underlying model which leads large behavioral changes.

It isn't classical probability theory. But isn't that far from classical probability theory really.

I disagree that you have to move to intuitionist logic, if only because I don't think you can reject the law of excluded middle outright. Either way, quantum mechanics is a mathematical treatment of atomic systems under certain premises. It involves probability, sure, but it is not itself simply a modest application of it.

There is a theorem that intuitionistic logic holds in every topos, while classical logic holds only in toposes equivalent to SET (i.e. equivalent to set theory).

You have to move to a topos which isn't equivalent to SET to formulate QM, so you effectively have to reject the law of the excluded middle, and (more importantly) redefine what you mean by negation exactly.

And, I didn't say "modest application" of probabilty theory, I said "modest change", and what I meant by that (and probably didn't say clearly) is that it is a modest weakening of part of probability theory that leads to QM (of course "modest" is in the eye of the beholder and depends on what you are looking for).

A "weakening" of a theory generally produces a more general theory.

Anyway, there is an interesting program out there involving all of this which aims to formulate probability theory and mechanics in general terms which will hold over a large range of toposes, and then say...

"Hey! if I choose do all this in the topos SET I get classical probability theory and classical mechanics! But if I do this in a topos based around the logic of vector spaces, I get QM! So maybe if I choose a topos which doesn't give classical theories or quantum theories I might get the right topos to get 'quantum' gravity!"

So 'quantum' gravity would be neither a classical nor a quantum theory.

 

[Chesterton]

Lots of people from all worldviews baulk at QM. It has nothing to do with religion, but with putting aside our own extensive personal experiences at the macro level and accepting the experiences of people conducting experiments at the quantum level.

All of us, of course, could do the quantum experiments if we wanted to. In practicality, we don't because of time, money, equipment, space, learning to do the experiments, etc. So we have to accept that the experience of a few people really are intersubjective and would be our experiences if we could do this. Even tho the experiences at the quantum level contradict our experiences of the macro level.

I understand, but my point is, if they want me to accept that ultimately, a single thing can be in more than once place or more than one state at one time, then they have no logical argument against the Christian idea of the Trinity, for example.

 

[Cabal]

Right. As a group quantum events are predictable. As individual photons or electrons or whatever, they are not. Kenneth Miller makes some interesting theological deductions from this in Chapters 6 and 7 of his Finding Darwin's God.

Yeah, I thought it was an interesting discussion at least, although I can't recall anything that I strongly agreed with

I did like his idea that if a god existed the fact that quantum uncertainty is present means deism is ruled out - but I think that's a somewhat anthropocentric view of things. Just because we can't see past that particular veil doesn't mean a god couldn't - especially if omnipotence is invoked.

What ideas in particular did you think were good? Might dig my copy out and have a reread of the latter chapters.

 

[Cabal]

That's like saying we shouldn't accept probability theory because of uncertainty.

Yeah, it wasn't a spectacularly inspired argument, nor did the proponent of it particularly have much of a clue about statistical physics!

However behaviors across large numbers of events are prefectly predictable (otherwise casinos wouldn't be such predictable and regular money-makers).

No uncertainty isn't an issue.

QM is just a fairly modest generalization of probability theory.

In practice, essentially yes, I think the "weirdness" with QM is that the uncertainty isn't present because there are so many variables we can't solve for a particular situation exactly, it's that it's a fundamental barrier to any naturalistic observation of the universe - i.e. the barrier isn't necessarily our inability to handle data but rather that the universe won't "let" us.

But in practice, yes, we can still make consistent and repeatable statistical measurements, which is firmly in the scientific realm.

The problem is that that modest generalization ends up with processes that violate all our intuitions about how objects ought to behave (even those involved in random processes).

Absolutely - my PhD will involve determining photon statistics of a particular device. I try not to think about single-photon mechanics any more than I have to

 

[Cabal]

I understand, but my point is, if they want me to accept that ultimately, a single thing can be in more than once place or more than one state at one time, then they have no logical argument against the Christian idea of the Trinity, for example.

I'm personally not getting why - the Trinity is not necessarily naturalistic (augh, always avoid alliteration blargh)