Is Quantum Physics an open book for theists?

[Atheologian]

Given the nature of subatomic particles, and our ability only to predict their nature with a certain level of probability, quantum uncertainty and the quantum vacuum have been debated by modern theists as sort of a "foot print" of god.

"If one wants to give an accurate description of the elementary particle—and here the emphasis is on the word "accurate"—the only thing which can be written down as description is a probability function. But then one sees that not even the quality of being...belongs to what is described" Werner Heisenberg

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment." Bernard d'Espagnat

It is suggested that consciousness may not be as seperate from the physical world around us as we once believed.

We cannot measure the position and velocity of a subatomic particle simultaneously, because we cannot observe something without affecting it (i.e. colliding electrons with photons as in the photo-electric experiment). This is the uncertainty.
Could this "uncertainty" just be evidence that we don't have the right tool to adequately measure both?
Maybe evidence that particles simply exist on a scale that prevents us from applying the logic of position and velocity in the same on way we do to the macro, or the very large?

The theoritical "vacuum" is the lowest state of energy, though not inactive, in which particles can somehow emerge from and dissappear into. This is considered by some to be the "Will of God", in that something can come from nothing.
Isn't this, however, just oversimplifying an aspect of quantum mechanics? Saying that the quantum vacuum is "nothing", when it seems to actually be a structured entity, reliant on, or at least complementary to, the laws of quantum physics?

Is there any merit to the notion that "God" exists on the quantum level?
Also, how do you think "string theory" comes into play here?

 

[Nothing]

Yes it is an open book for theists. Isn't Quantum Physics refered to as "The Field of Infinite Possibilities"? Sub-atomic particles behaved differently when observed by scientists and they were baffled, and in light of your question I have received a theory.
I believe the sub-atomic particles reacted quite predictably and I will cite the water experiments of Dr. Emoto to make my case. As you probably know, Dr. Emoto determined that we can alter the state of water molecules with the intent we put upon them. If you accept this as true, then apply this to sub-atomic particles, and then take into consideration that these particles are far more sensitive then H2O molecules.
I believe that the scientists who conducted these experiments had inner conflictions (as we all do) and was reflected by the behavior of these mega-sensitive particles.
I believe all experiments with these particles will will produce conflicting results until we resolve our inner confliction.
You ask are thes particles a footprint of God? Consider this: THEY ARE GOD!!
Are these particles not the substance that the entire universe is made of?
Such an amazing time it is!!

 

[Amill]

I don't mind calling Quantum Physics god, but it certainly is a different definition. I don't personally see how this makes a Creator more likely, I think that people who are already theists will see this and it will strengthen their belief, but to the rest of us it just shows that the Universe is far grander, far more incredible, and more odd than we could have imagined.

 

[dogsgod]

The Uncertainty Principle contradicts the certainty of the theist's beliefs.

 

[freethinker44]

The uncertainty principle isn't a foundational law of quantum mechanics, it is only an observer effect that only happens when we try to measure a particle. It is like trying to measure the speed of a basketball by throwing baseballs at it, obviously this is problem because the speed and momentum of the baseballs will seriously alter the speed and momentum of the basketball. The uncertainty principle is only a human problem not a quantum problem.

 

[ellenjanuary]

It's actually kinda simple when one looks past the idolatry of many religions. God is, god created the universe, god is all. god is relevant; add it all together, and what do you get? There is but one single building supply available for god - the body of god.

Supposedly us scientific-types are arrogant! I've read that the RCC has "infallibly decreed" that god created the universe from nothing! We - do not understand - nothingness. It is beyond conception, so we commonly use a symbolic replacement. The word nothing. What we understand of this word can be equated to what we understand of the word zero. In the strictest sense, zero is not a number; it is a concept grown from the consideration of a distinct quantity being removed from an extant and equal quantity. The hidden, first assumption, is that something first existed.

A god that is everything is also nothing; otherwise such a god is too far beyond understanding to be relevant. Simple math. A little more math clearly indicates why an infinite god is all for quantum theory. The limitations of words and language is the true barrier to the next stage of the expansion of human consciousness. One can hope that science and true compassion can overcome religious superstitions and prejudices...

One can always hope...

 

[dogsgod]

The uncertainty principle isn't a foundational law of quantum mechanics, it is only an observer effect that only happens when we try to measure a particle. It is like trying to measure the speed of a basketball by throwing baseballs at it, obviously this is problem because the speed and momentum of the baseballs will seriously alter the speed and momentum of the basketball. The uncertainty principle is only a human problem not a quantum problem.

I agree, I was speaking metaphorically. Also, when it comes to elementary particles, how could they behave otherwise? One has to receive information by way of photons or electrons, there is no other way of measuring and receiving the information so it's no surprise that momentum and location can't both be accurately measured at the same time.

 

[freethinker44]

A little more math clearly indicates why an infinite god is all for quantum theory.

Infinity doesn't exist in math. If you get an infinite value for an answer then it means you did something wrong to get there.




EDIT: I'm sorry I should have said infinity doesn't exist in physics math.

 

[darkendless]

Infinity doesn't exist in math. If you get an infinite value for an answer then it means you did something wrong to get there.

EDIT: I'm sorry I should have said infinity doesn't exist in physics math.

That would depend on the type of math you are doing and the constraints you apply in order to achieve to get there. Integrate between positive and negative infinity and guess what, you get infinity assuming the original function is to the power of something greater than 1.

Physics math in theory has infinity in it as well. It's everywhere dude, wavelengths from 0 lander to infinity lander? Ring any bells?

 

[Bloomdido]

I would have been impressed with any reference to sub atomic particles (or even molecules) in any of the holy books.

 

[darkendless]

I would have been impressed with any reference to sub atomic particles (or even molecules) in any of the holy books.

Depends how loosely you want them defined. I'm sure muslims can find some passage they think is related.

 

[freethinker44]

That would depend on the type of math you are doing and the constraints you apply in order to achieve to get there. Integrate between positive and negative infinity and guess what, you get infinity assuming the original function is to the power of something greater than 1.

Physics math in theory has infinity in it as well. It's everywhere dude, wavelengths from 0 lander to infinity lander? Ring any bells?

In physics, approximations of real numbers are used for continuous measurements and natural numbers are used for discrete measurements (i.e. counting). It is therefore assumed by physicists that no measurable quantity could have an infinite value, for instance by taking an infinite value in an extended real number system or by requiring the counting of an infinite number of events. It is for example presumed impossible for any body to have infinite mass or infinite energy. There exists the concept of infinite entities (such as an infinite plane wave) but there are no means to generate such things.

Infinite exists only as a concept and is not physically possible.

 

[darkendless]

Infinite exists only as a concept and is not physically possible.

Thats why physics is more phun than traditional maths, instead of theoretical concepts which constants multiply like viruses, you just plug in numbers and get the answer in 1 line

 

[freethinker44]

I would have been impressed with any reference to sub atomic particles (or even molecules) in any of the holy books.

It wouldn't be any more impressive to me than if a patent clerk in switzerland proved the law of gravity wrong. Humans write holy books, and humans make scientific discoveries, it is not impressive for one man to do something any other man could have done.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Infinity doesn't exist in math. If you get an infinite value for an answer then it means you did something wrong to get there.




EDIT: I'm sorry I should have said infinity doesn't exist in physics math.

No need to apologize, my good man; for we shall share understanding in an effort to build understanding... but let us not squander the concept of renormalization upon the uninitiated.

Here is a clear example of the usefulness of scientific awareness. Mathematics is considered the "queen of the sciences" by being a "self-sufficient framework;" from axiom to the infinite, it requires basically nothing outside itself. Physics stands next, by necessity referring only to itself and the discipline before it. Followed by chemistry in the same manner; before the path branches with biology.

This does not make math a higher or greater discipline than physics; it merely indicates a greater purity. Doesn't make me right, doesn't make Freethinker wrong; what it does do is all us to collaborate so that everybody wins. Religion, as a discipline unto itself, restricts this type of growth. Is a Baptist going to agree with a Catholic to advance the knowledge of a Mormon?

Religion has become a pestilence with the insistence of "being right" and needs to appreciate the value of being not wrong. Those who choose to "speak for god" have forgotten the original hypothesis of god: With god, everybody wins.

And here I am lecturing like an idiot. My bad. Considering god as number has allowed me a far wider grasp in conceptualizing the unknowable than mere word.

 

[ellenjanuary]

I would have been impressed with any reference to sub atomic particles (or even molecules) in any of the holy books.

Religion, itself intolerant; preaches tolerance. The man of science who respects the faith of the believer finds himself at the dead end of a one way street.

Check this: And Jehovah God formed the man out of dust from the ground... What purpose is served for the believer with these words? Interesting question. Consider perhaps that god actually knows his business, that he provided the tools necessary to cull religious nonsense; not with just reason, but with false righteousness's own sword of the lord.

A Creationist who would step to the Gwynnite may find himself on the wrong side of the blade. Is this abiogenesis? Does this "dust" mean that we are all made of stars? Is this the quark?

 

[freethinker44]

I would never math as the sole reason to believe in anything. Math is purely conceptual, what's possible in math isn't always possible in reality, infinity for example. For this reason, physicists use math as a language, not a foundation. It is completely possible to explain physics without math, it is just harder to understand.

There is nothing wrong with conceptualizing god with math, god must exist as a concept at least, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it. And what better way to talk about about a concept than with a completely conceptual process. However, if god cannot be reconciled outside of math, than it would appear that god only exists as a concept.

 

[ellenjanuary]

I would never math as the sole reason to believe in anything. Math is purely conceptual, what's possible in math isn't always possible in reality, infinity for example. For this reason, physicists use math as a language, not a foundation. It is completely possible to explain physics without math, it is just harder to understand.

There is nothing wrong with conceptualizing god with math, god must exist as a concept at least, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it. And what better way to talk about about a concept than with a completely conceptual process. However, if god cannot be reconciled outside of math, than it would appear that god only exists as a concept.

I need to make a t-shirt: I stood before the creator of the universe and all I got was this lousy shirt!

Let us assume I merely hallucinated. I got no problem with that. There is but a single thing that makes me "special." Nine years of being obscenely in love with a woman I have never met. Made up a religion to illustrate the folly of claiming that any religion is "true." Then I f-ked up. Big time.

From a single step forward in philosophy, of all places... to the simple act of catching all of Christendom in recurring "sin." Yikes. With nothing but positive reinforcement from all sides, by standing upon uncertainty, by always considering how I could be possibly be in error; to abandoning the folly of trying to be right with the realization of being not wrong...

To say it all in four lines - a ballad for my Gwynnie.

Or not.

 

[Bloomdido]

Depends how loosely you want them defined. I'm sure muslims can find some passage they think is related.

Yes, they probably could. I am noticing this ability.

 

[Bloomdido]

It wouldn't be any more impressive to me than if a patent clerk in switzerland proved the law of gravity wrong. Humans write holy books, and humans make scientific discoveries, it is not impressive for one man to do something any other man could have done.

If a patent clerk had been mentioned in the bible, I would feel more comfortable about it!