posted
Another recent idea in string theory is that all the independent constants of nature, light, gravitation, etc. exist as a sort of multidimensional surface, and universes that exist tend to slide down into minima on that surface (minimizing the energy). Our big bang universe is likely to be one of untold trillions, all with different physical laws, that happens to be tucked into a pocket of this manifold. The exact pocket we inhabit is what gives rise to our particular set of constants.
It's possible that other big bangs could come into existence inside ours, without any problems of displacement. Since space itself expands to hold it, it doesn't take up any of OUR space.
It's also possible that when we become advanced enough both spiritually and scientifically, some of us will be involved in organizing our own new universes, new big bangs, with our own billions of spirit children to evolve, and become embodied therein.
From a scientific standpoint, of course, all of the above is pure speculation. Nobody would have any reason to believe this over any other possibilities unless they had, perhaps, some additional source of information outside of science. Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: My questions are for the religious-and-scientifically minded among us. (Like the "theistic evolutionists".) Does this "god behind the science" belief extend to other scientific theories as well? For instance do you believe in the "Big Bang" and that God used it to create the universe?
I'm unconvinced of the Big Bang. There are other explanations for the observed red shift. That said, I don't have a problem with it, either.
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Do you believe in the current theories of planet, star, and galaxy formation, which (at face value) do not require a devine hand for their explanatory value, with the additional belief that somewhere God's hand is the impetus or controlling factor that uses these methods to create the universe we see?
Again, I'm not convinced by the prevailing theories regarding planet and star formation. I think there is a growing body of work that suggests that electrical effects have had a much greater influence than gravitational ones.
But once more, regardless of which is which, I don't have a problem with it from a religious point of view.
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: The prevailing theories about the formation of the universe point to a "big bang" start and a finish of either a "Big Crunch" (where everything evenually collapses back on itself) or a "Big Freeze" (where eventually the universe plays itself out, expanding and expending energy until all is cold and dead). Do any scientific theists here believe these scenarios?
Not I. They seem unlikely. But who really knows?
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: If so how does God fit in here? Or if you reject these scenarios, what do you believe is the ultimate fate of the universe?
Happily ever after?
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Do you believe in "miracles"? That is, do you believe that God, at times, intervenes by suspending natural law?
Yes and no. Judaism teaches that things that seem to be suspensions of natural law were actually set up by God during creation. Sort of like a trick pool shot. Everything else came about through natural means.
But look... I don't think it matters if God sits back on a throne and snaps His metaphorical fingers, or if He uses natural means to achieve the same thing. Quantum physics has so much indeterminism built into it that there's ample room for God to manipulate things within the bounds of natural law.
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Do you believe The Flood, or the parting of the Red Sea, or turning water into wine literally occurred?
The first two, yes. The third, no. <grin>
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: These aren't meant to be leading questions. I understand how people might be completely scientifically minded, yet still believe in some sort of God. But the gods that I see fitting that sort of bill begin to look very different from the God of mainstream Christianity, or what I know of mainstream Judaism or Islam (which is admittedly limited).
Indeed. The Jewish view of God is vastly different from those others. Actually, God is explained in different ways in Judaism, depending on level and audience. I know that what I know about God wasn't taught in the Orthodox high school I went to.
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Let me add here a request that we all please keep this discussion (if there is one) civil. Let people express their beliefs without ridicule. I'm not asking this in order to challenge anyone's beliefs, but to understand them myself.
I agree. And if anything I say seems off-putting to anyone, please let me know either on the board, or by e-mail, and I'll correct it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I, too, in case it isn't clear already, believe that religion and science don't contradict. I believe something even stronger than that, really. I believe scientific and engineering advancement are as important to our religious life as spiritual advancement. That's why we're told to learn everything we can about everything possible. Because we need to know it.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: So are you saying that humans have the ability to alter reality or move mountains by means of faith, understanding, and will? Is this ability inherent only to humans? What is behind this power or ability? Is it simply the mind, or some connection that we have with the universe?
I f this ability truly exists (and quantum physics seems to indicate that it does, to some extent) then it needn't be limited only to humans, though humans are the only creatures I know of which are capable of visualizing the world as differently than their senses tell them it is. I think that this ability also carries with it the inherent danger of being able to completely deluding oneself into believing all sorts of silly and fanciful things, but in my formulation this is the price to be paid for the ability to change the world.
As to the physical mechanism for why this should be true- I admit that I haven't the foggiest notion, though I have a fanciful theory. This theory runs something like this-
all particles of matter, whatever they may be, have a bit of information associated with them. This information is something really simple such as a position and a velocity. We know that we have access to this information through a number of different measurements performed in the lab.
However, on a simpler level, the mere fact that we can access the world through our senses shows that we have access to basic particle information through non-laboratory means. For example, the sense of sight conveys information to our brains through a complex chain of events that includes light reflecting from a multitude of different molecules and being captured by pigments in our eyes which convey information via ionic and chemical reactions about the state of those molecules.
Now, combining the idea that our senses convey to us information about the state of molecules with the idea that senses like vision function in the realm of quantum effects (e.g. single photons can elicit a response) and the idea that in the realm of quantum physics measurement inherently affects the thing being measured, we can postulate a feedback loop where seeing a thing changes the nature of the thing seen.
The real question is whether we can function as a sort of consciously controlled massive parallel photon detector. In the quantum experiment I mentioned earlier, a photon detector was used to determine the past path of the photon. The human eye (or any other eye, for that matter) is a massively parallel photon detetcor. So when we visaulize something differently than it is, can we actively set off a chain raction which ends in a change in the way photons are detetced (and by extension the past history of the photon, the interaction of photon with molecules and so on)? And of course this example includes only vision. There are many different effects which control things on a small enough level to effect quantum change. For example, the human mind itself. Thought on the physical level consists of moving ions back and forth across a membrane. This creates magnetic and electric field which interact with the world around us. Different though patterns must necessarily change these magnetic and electric fields, which in turn have an effect (however slight) on all charged particles such as protons and electrons, and of course movement of charged particles involves movement of mass which can effect other particles thorugh the other forces (strong, weak and gravitationsal). Obviously any effect of a single mind on the surrounding physical world is infinitesimal. But, what if such an infinitesimal change can be propagated through the system to effect massive change? It is the same idea as the butterfly effect.
edited to add- of course humans have no way of calculating the effect any given thought pattern or visual pattern would have, and random patterns would tend to exist in a system as white noise. But given access to information about the way to propagate an infinitesimal effect into a large one, it could be conceivably achieved. And this is where God comes in. Presumably God has the necessary information available, and so by aiding a human to achieve the proper pattern of fields the change could be made.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I found the manifold (membrane) idea of string theory interesting. However, as you said, it has to become as much an article of faith (or philosophy) as God is, until there is some way to test it. Indeed, String theory, as powerful and elegant as I think it is, is still in the early stages where the technology is not able test some of it's predictions.
That said, I share your viewpoint on science and religion, Anne Kate (and the brain as a quantum computer is intriguing). It's part of a vaster framework regarding our universe and our place in the universe that we may eventually understand, if we use the appopriate tool for the appropriate task.
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Plus, God understands a lot more about physics than we do. Perhaps that indeterminism isn't so indeterminate to him.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have often thought that it is quantum uncertainty that breaks us free from the shackles of a physically deterministic universe. I even suspect that human thought, at least at some level, somewhere in that uncertainty so that our decisions, at some point, are not BECAUSE anything, but because we chose to. When I realized that, Quantum uncertainty no longer seemed to appear to be simply due to our physical limitations (where underneath the level we observered, things were smooth and deterministic), but seemed to be absolutely necessary for our minds to exist. And I marvelled at what I believe God had done, and how he had structured the universe from the beginning so that he could create beings completely (since I don't believe in uncreated spirits) and they still truly have free will.
I still marvel at it.
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I'm a theistic scientist, or a scientific theist.
I'm orthodox on Christianity (God made the world, and does miracles), and on science (Big Bang, planetary formation, evolution). I'm uncomfortable saying "I believe in the Big Bang"; I might say, "I believe in it till something stronger comes along."
As a silly analogy: Jesus ascended into heaven. Do I believe it? Yes. Does it violate the laws of physics God made? No. I suppose he can when he wants. But *I* ascended into heaven, last time I went to the airport.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: I, too, in case it isn't clear already, believe that religion and science don't contradict. I believe something even stronger than that, really. I believe scientific and engineering advancement are as important to our religious life as spiritual advancement. That's why we're told to learn everything we can about everything possible. Because we need to know it.
posted
Anthropic principle: I think this is just saying that whatever theories we build about the universe must be consistent with the presence of carbon-based life forms! You *can* use it to end debate, but it needn't. If you generate a theory that makes carbon-based life forms impossible, or very, very unlikely, I'd be less likely to accept the theory than one that allows for our existence!
[ September 16, 2005, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: Will B ]
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scientific theories come and go... This one will likely turn out to be very successful but also flawed in significant ways - since that's the typical end result for so many scientific theories.
As for whether or not it is actually true, I think we will never know if it is, unless God does exist and tells us. Other than that, how could you find out? Even if you could time travel, it'd be impossible to go back and observe the Big Bang without being destroyed.
And as for its consistency with God, I don't think there's much of a problem, unless you believe the Bible completely literally - and even then only if make certain assumptions about God's not having designed the universe in such a way as to trick us.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't believe it is correct to say "science and religion don't contradict each other." One can say "science does not contradict my beliefs" (or even "my religion"), or even "true science and true religion do not contradict" as someone above said, but it is a demonstrable fact that scientific "knowledge" does contradict the religious beliefs of many people. Of course, I don't have this problem because I don't have any spiritual beliefs, per se.
Also, I fully recognize that current "prevailing theories" of science are not complete and are subject to change and modification. That is one of the greatest strengths of science, in my opinion. So when I ask "do you believe in the Big Bang" I don't mean "do you hold it as sacred cannon, immutable and everlasting".
SenojRetep:
quote:I think that your assertion that these things don't require a divine hand to explain them is untenable. I could say the existance of natural laws is evidence of a creator, for how can anything (including laws) exist without being created. That natural laws can exist independant of deity is not a fact it's just a belief (I'd say a misapplication of Occam's razor).
I don't think the assertion I made is untenable. I think you are confusing it with the assertion "These things require that there is no creator" which isn't what I said, of course. Those theories accept the possibility (though they don't require it) that random factors lead to planetary formation, etc. By entertaining these possibilities, a creator isn't required. (Note again I'm not saying one isn't possible or even that accepting randomness as a possibility constitutes any kind of evidence against a creator.)
To ask "how can anything exist without a creator" is to beg the question of who created the creator, does it not?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry, I got so excited writing what I wanted to write that I misinterpreted what you said. Rereading I realize I was responding to what I thought you said, which wasn't what you said at all. I have often heard expressed the idea that since current theories of creation don't require a creator, the creator must not exist which I feel is logically untenable. Again, sorry for the miscue.
As for the who created the creator logical loop, I believe God was himself created in a creation external to ours. And his creator likewise. And so on to infinity.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I have often thought that it is quantum uncertainty that breaks us free from the shackles of a physically deterministic universe."
What is very interesting to me is that quantum uncertainties arise, not from physical interactions, but are due to underlying mathematical structure. It seems to be a fundamental characteristic of the universe that things are uncertain, rather then a problem with how we can observe the universe. Even if we didn't require photons to bounce off of particles in order ot measure their momentum and position (For example), and could somehow measure the momentum and position of the particle without interacting with it in any way, there would still be an uncertainty in the measurements.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Re: uncaused first cause-- *something* must be self-existent from eternity... the question is whether it is personal (as in Christianity) or impersonal (as in Pantheism or an oscillating universe)
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paul, to me that's still more of a shortcoming in our own measurement and conceptualization abilities than an unsolvable uncertainty built into quantum particles. I imagine it is either theoretically possible to eradicate the uncertainty with proper observation techniques, or to reach a point where we understand why the uncertainty exists in the larger context.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
AFR- We might be able to come to the point where we understand why the uncertainty exists in a larger context, but it doesn't seem to be possible to eradicate the uncertainty with observation techniques, as the uncertainty arises from the commutator of the quantities involved. Its purely mathematical, so far as we can tell right now, and not physical.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paul---is this uncertainty a big barrier in physics right now? What would removing the uncertainty yield?
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apparently, the uncertainty is pretty much built into the universe. I've read some things which say that no matter how good our equipment gets, there's a certain number, which equals the uncertainty in a particle's velocity times the uncertainty in the position, and we can't do any better than that.
So...if God is omniscient, does that include knowledge of a particle's exact location and velocity? I personally think that it would be pretty horrible to be completely omnicient, with nothing new to discover. I could see designing a universe like this one just to see what happens.
Also, I think that the anthropic principle applies pretty well to the earth. It's harder to apply to the universe because we only know of one. But if there really are many universes, then it might well apply to our universe as well.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I'm sorry, I got so excited writing what I wanted to write that I misinterpreted what you said. Rereading I realize I was responding to what I thought you said, which wasn't what you said at all. I have often heard expressed the idea that since current theories of creation don't require a creator, the creator must not exist which I feel is logically untenable. Again, sorry for the miscue.
As for the who created the creator logical loop, I believe God was himself created in a creation external to ours. And his creator likewise. And so on to infinity.
No worries. These subjects are so fraught with pat answers that it's easy to overlook what's actually being said.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, from what I've read, that seems true, Paul. Things at that level themselves exist as probabilty waves (perhaps superpositions over multiple parallel universes- a notion I'm not sure I buy). Moreover, they occupy states that have no analog to our understand (as in wave/particle duality). The Heisenberg (sp?) uncertainty principle seems to indicate that our observation interferes with objects at that level. But I think it goes deeper than simply because, for example, we can't 'see' a particle unless we RAM a photon into it, thus interfering with it's direction and speed. I think the uncertainties are built into the fabric itself. (If anyone saw "The Elegant Universe" on PBS, the image of the chaotic, random quantum fluctuations of space-time is apt).
Too, some fluctations seem to occur with no observer, as in virtual particles, ghostly particles (and their anti-particle mate) coming into existence and then anhilating eachother briefly, costing zero net energy to the system (unless it occurs on both sides of an event horizon, making anihilation impossible, and manifesting itself as Hawking radiation.)
Again, I marvel at the relative stability of our universe, that all of this (and relativistic effects, as well) could go on from the beginning of the universe, and yet we have no clue until this last century. And yet such randomness, as I said before, sets us free from a 'billiard ball' view of the universe where the physical laws describe every particle's actions (far in advance), including those that make up our brains, effectively removing free will.
It truly amazes me.
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Can you take another run at that for me Paul?"
I can try
Basically, when you take two quantities, and multiply them together, and then reverse the order you multiply the quantities in, and subtract those two results, you get zero... the commutative principle.
With certain quantities, when you do this for the full expanded matrix form, you do NOT get zero. There's a little tiny bit left over.
Heisenbergs uncertainty principle says that this little bit left over is the uncertainty that exists in the structure of the universe, and that when two quantities, such as momentum and position, have a commutator that is non-zero, then the two quantities cannot be perfectly known simultaneously.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:With certain quantities, when you do this for the full expanded matrix form, you do NOT get zero. There's a little tiny bit left over.
Are you talking about multiplying matrices together? If so, that's just because multiplying matrices does not mean the same thing at all as multiplying numbers.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, if it weren't it wouldn't be science.
We're pretty darn confident its not just a shortcoming of our mathematical model, though. For one thing, the uncertainty principle is very useful for explaining why our universe actually works.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, mph, its not the same as multiplying numbers. But that doesn't mean there's no significance.
I should clarify that we're talking about the operators that go along with the observable quantities (the position operator, and the momentum operator, do not have a zero commutator).
Incompatible observables (two observables for which the commutator of the operators is non-zero) do not have a complete set of shared eigenvectors, and the matrices representing incompatible observables cannot be simultaneously diagonalized.
Compatible observables share complete eigenvector sets, and the matrices can be diagonalized.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think he meant it was solely mathematical. Just that the underlying mathematics predicts an uncertainty that is observed in the physical universe.
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is that the story Paul? Are you saying the uncertainty is a product of the math or the physical universe?
Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I'm saying is that the uncertainty principle is a theoretical limit, not a practical limit.
The uncertainty results from the physical universe, obviously, but its a mathematically derived uncertainty.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I can't answer for Paul, necessarily. But mathematics are based on our understanding/observation of the physical universe. From there, the logical rules of mathematics branch into entirely new realms, sometimes purely theoretical- that is, until some physical process or practical application can be found for it that makes it not so theoritical (such as imaginary numbers and electronics).
But mathematics do not affect the physical universe except where we (or other entities) use such mathematics to *do* something on the universe.
So mathematical uncertainties cannot be anything but mathematical descriptions of physical truths. They cannot create the quantum uncertainties we observe in the universe, at least not as we understand it now. They can only describe (or even predict) them.
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
Once we have a physical descritpion of something, the rules of mathematics take over. We can manipulate the mathematics, and find a new equation, based solely on the logic of the math. If that new equation tells us something new about the universe that our first mathematical description didn't, then we've discovered something new about the universe through the applications of mathematical logic.
Thats sorta what happens with the uncertainty principle.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will number myself among the theists in this thread, though it's a bit iffy with me.
quote:Do you believe in the current theories of planet, star, and galaxy formation, which (at face value) do not require a devine hand for their explanatory value, with the additional belief that somewhere God's hand is the impetus or controlling factor that uses these methods to create the universe we see?
I won't use the word "untenable" but you have asserted something as being essentially self-evidently true, which I think is not. The fact that many people believe these theories do not require a divine hand does not mean that they do not. Frankly, these things are a big part of why I still do believe in a divine creator. (I don't think I'm misreading your intention here. I realize you are not asserting that they do require the nonexistence of God. I think I understand where you are coming from and simply disagree with it.) I don't think we can convince each other on this one, but I simply want to move the line as it were . . . I think scientific theists disagree with you from further back than you realize.
(I don't know how successful I was in communicating myself there. *sigh* If I see that I was not successful, I'll try again.)
-o-
With the typical caveat that scientific theories are subject to revision, I will say that I believe completely in the scientific method, and--again, attempting to avoid the imprecision of language which Karl has pointed out--I will say that science is incapable of being at odds with my spiritual beliefs, because my spiritual beliefs incorporate a scientific worldview.
Having said that, do I believe in miracles? I thought, meditated, and prayed on this for some time and I have concluded that I do. I would agree, however, that my personal conception of God is pretty different from the traditional Judeo-Christian ones (my apologies if that phrase makes anyone cringe) I have encountered. For that matter, I have not yet found a satisfactory fit in the non-Western religions either, though my search has been by no means exhaustive. The issue of how active God is, and how humanlike in His actions, motivations, etc., has been at the heart of my religious difficulties. Ultimately, though, it only makes sense (to me) that if God set the world in motion, He will continue to have both the power and inclination to interact with it again. So I *mostly* reject the idea of a clockmaker God.
Before reading this thread, when faced with the question of whether God suspends physical laws or not when He does something miraculous, I would have responded that the question was merely semantic, since I believe the physical laws reflect what God created. But I like the p.o.v. that has been stated here a few times already, that He is not violating those laws, and we would see this if we knew the workings of the physical universe well enough (The magnetism analogy, especially).
Many people here (including those who have rather different specific beliefs than I do) have said things that I believe better than I think I can state them. In particular, Tatiana's posts here have rung rather true to me.
posted
I thought aspects of the uncertainty principle could be observed--like the single particle that passes through both slits at the same time. That is a physical phenomenon.
So the math supports what we observe? I was unaware that this happened in math. I thought math was "perfect" and didn't have any of the "messiness" found in reality.
Edit: Perhaps my comments come a bit late. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think wave-particle duality is a manifestation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. I believe that was you can know a particle's position or you can know a particle's speed/momentum/direction (can't rememeber what it was), but you cannot know both exactly. Because the more exactly you know one through observation, the more you have interfered with the particle, so you the other's uncertainty increases.
When you think about it, it makes sense. 'Seeing' is merely the reception/interpretations of photons as they bounce on an object and return to us. Using sub-atomic particles (which, for example, in the case of electrons actually absorb photons and go to new energy levels) the 'collision' (difficult to understand with massless photon- but photons DO have momentum, so there is an impact, nonetheless) will affect the particle. When we get the photon back and interpret it (sort of) we have a better idea of the position, but we have changed it's speed/trajectory. so it's a trade off, the more we know about position, the less we know about the other, and vice versa.
Something along those lines, anyway. Observation itself physically interferes with the objects we are interfering with.
While observation seems to collapse a photon (or electron, etc) wave function into a particle, it is not, I believe due to Heisenberg. (Someone correct me if I am wrong). It's due to something else (can't remember). But it's an additional uncertainty. Add to that, the existence of virtual particles, quantum tunneling (a function of wave particle positional distribution) and you have a truly uncertain world, at best.
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think wave-particle duality is a manifestation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. I believe that was you can know a particle's position or you can know a particle's speed/momentum/direction (can't rememeber what it was), but you cannot know both exactly. Because the more exactly you know one through observation, the more you have interfered with the particle, so you the other's uncertainty increases.
I thought it related because if we try to observe it as it is happening, it will only pass through one or the other. But if we leave it alone and only observe the after-effects, we can see that it passed through both.
quote:While observation seems to collapse a photon (or electron, etc) wave function into a particle, it is not, I believe due to Heisenberg. (Someone correct me if I am wrong). It's due to something else (can't remember). But it's an additional uncertainty. Add to that, the existence of virtual particles, quantum tunneling (a function of wave particle positional distribution) and you have a truly uncertain world, at best.
I guess I get the two mixed up. Or, in my mind, they seem like they ought to be related. Kinda like the different forces are supposed to be related. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm just bookkending the thread here- to answer Karl's initial question- Yes. Your overview of a theistic cosmology describes my belief pretty well. I don't go as far as Sterling McMurrin, a quasi-famous philosopher and cultural Mormon who said Mormons don't believe in the supernatural in the same sense that other religions do. Well, more later.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope the following is an easy and semi-accurate depiction of the uncertainty principle:
In quantum mechanics, any state of an object can be expressed as a sum of other states. We describe a state by giving its value for an observable quantity, like position. For instance, a particle in the state |5 inches to my left> will certainly be 5 inches to my left if I measure its position.
But it could also be in a combined state (superpositions is the technical word) like |5 inches left> + |5 inches right>. When this happens, there's some chance it will end up to the left and some chance it will end up to the right, if measured.
Position and momentum are conjugate observables; as Paul has said, they don't commute. What this means in practicality is that any particle with a definite state of position is in a combined state of momentum, or vice versa. Mathematically, this just amounts to another way of writing out the particle's state. For example, we might have
|5 meters/sec> = |left> + |right>
Thus, any particle that is definitely moving 5 meters per second must be in a combined state of being on the left and on the right. Saying that it's in a specific state of motion is the same as saying it's in a combined state of position. So if we know how fast it's moving, we can't know where it is. The theory has no way of describing a particle with both a specific position and a specific momentum. This is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
What about wave-particle duality? This is a related idea. It also has to do with the fact that particles can be in combined states. Let's say we send a particle in the combined state
|left> + |right>
at a pair of slits in the wall. If the particle is on the right, it goes through the right slit; if it's on the left, it goes through the left slit. But as you can see, it's neither on the left or on the right. It's in a combined state. So it ends up in a combination of the state where it goes through the left slit and the state where it goes through the right slit. When it's measured, it takes on one of those two states as usual.
If you measure it before it goes through, on the other hand, it must take on either |right> or |left> -- and this happens before it hits the wall, so it only goes through one slit.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Do you believe in "miracles"? That is, do you believe that God, at times, intervenes by suspending natural law?
Yes and no. Judaism teaches that things that seem to be suspensions of natural law were actually set up by God during creation. Sort of like a trick pool shot. Everything else came about through natural means.
"Judaism" does nothing of the sort! You are citing the rationalist position (exemplified by the Rambam(Maimonides)). But you completely ignore the mystics and Kabbalists (such as the Ramban (Nachmanides)) as well as those who take a more central position (like the Maharal).
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
but you have asserted something as being essentially self-evidently true, which I think is not. The fact that many people believe these theories do not require a divine hand does not mean that they do not. Frankly, these things are a big part of why I still do believe in a divine creator. (I don't think I'm misreading your intention here. I realize you are not asserting that they do require the nonexistence of God. I think I understand where you are coming from and simply disagree with it.) I don't think we can convince each other on this one, but I simply want to move the line as it were . . . I think scientific theists disagree with you from further back than you realize. 
