We Never Know
No Slack
"You may have been an atheist. But that is highly doubtful. You do not appear to be a rationalist at all"
Are you claiming only atheists can be rational?
If not.. What are you claiming?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Let's not talk about the Big Bang
- Thread starter YoursTrue
- Start date
"You may have been an atheist. But that is highly doubtful. You do not appear to be a rationalist at all"
Are you claiming only atheists can be rational?
If not.. What are you claiming?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, there are many religious people that can also reason rationally. But you refuse to ever take a rational approach to problems. You put your interpretation of the Bible first. Rational people realize that they can be wrong. If reality disagrees with their religious beliefs they take another look at them and see if perhaps their interpretation is in error. That is why most Christians accept the fact of evolution. They do not need the Adam and Eve myth to be a Christian.
One can reason rationally and still have a belief in God. I sometimes believe that those that insist on reasoning irrationally have a much weaker faith than they claim. Either God did it their way or he does not exist.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
If you consider a "rational argument" something like 'it's not true that the earth hangs on nothing,; then yes, our discussion is kind of over at least for a while in terms of rationality. Because if a person can't "see" that the word nothing or hang can have different reasonable ways of "looking" at it, then yes, our discussion is over. I was an atheist because I did not see God (mentally) and the world of religion is so confused as far as I am concerned and the horrible things I saw some religions guilty of, I gave up and finally said there is no God. That's about it.
Then someone said something that changed my life. It was something that a preacher said to me when I was asking him questions. He said, "Only God can give you the gift of faith." And I said "But I don't believe in God." And he repeated, "Only God can give you the gift of faith." I am saying the rest is up to each individual.
I am grateful for the discussions here. Honestly.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, now you are just abusing poetic language and trying to reinterpret it to match reality. The Bible got all sorts of things wrong and that verse is one of them. You cannot only count the "hits" and ignore all of the misses.
We Never Know
No Slack
"But you refuse to ever take a rational approach to problems. You put your interpretation of the Bible first."
I'm not religious. I don't believe in a god. The bible is a book written by men.
So be rational and admit again you are wrong.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Maybe there's more to it than you see.
We Never Know
No Slack
And maybe there isn't No one alive knows.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I see that you still do not know how that emoji works. You didn't notice by any chance who I was responding to, did you?"But you refuse to ever take a rational approach to problems. You put your interpretation of the Bible first."
I'm not religious. I don't believe in a god. The bible is a book written by men.
So be rational and admit again you are wrong.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
The Bible takes a while to understand and read. When I see the rationality of what the Bible says in terms of things beyond God, such as the universe and life coming about, it makes sense. Not much is really said about that, though. And that makes sense, too. Humans are in a big constraint as to really helping each other and improving life on this earth. Wars, disease, natural disasters, etc. all add to problems humans have a hard time placing in perspective. And because it makes sense that God cannot be seen by human eyes, it also makes sense that the thoughts are transmitted by God and written down.
Perhaps you recall the event of the Ethiopian eunuch who went to Jerusalem to worship but did not understand what he was hearing. He asked a disciple how could he understand unless someone taught him? And so the disciple helped the man to understand about the Christ.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Good for you. What is there to take care of? My views are different.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Except it doesn't say a single thing about any difference between time at the 'quantum scale' and time on a large scale. Did you even read it? If you read it, did you understand it at all?
It's an interesting enough article about some (untested) theoretical work that suggests that gravity can contribute to decoherence but it doesn't say anything at all about quantised space-time.
What part of it specifically do you think supports your idea?
In that case you are talking about something that standard quantum mechanics simply does not cover. As I said, quantum mechanics always uses continuous space and time - as any textbook and any (reputable) introduction to the subject you can find anywhere will confirm.
So we're again back to asking for a single, solitary reference from you that supports your view as current, accepted science.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
And maybe not, and it's just so ingrained in society and religion that people think there is more to it than there is. If you're really convinced there is more to a text you can almost certainly find something to interpret that way, especially if you already 'know' what the message is.
I clearly remember the first time I read the bible through, I was young, and I was fully expecting the message I'd got from church to be in there. Imagine my disappointment when all I found was a disjointed, incoherent mess, that at best only had a few hints. I thought I was doing it wrong to begin with but I couldn't sustain it in the end. It's just not there.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Yes, by ancient people who understood Earth was in outer space and seemed to have space in all directions and everything was moving around Earth.
But it's actually moving (falling) in a geodesic. But things don't hang in space, they don't hang on nothing either. Hanging requires gravity, in space that concept doesn't apply. Ancient people had not learned this yet, makes sense.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Yeah proving evolution wrong doesn't advance any of the thousands of creation stories as being the default position. The Mesopotamian creation stories would not be true and Genesis is a re-write of those. Anti-evolution is more of a conspiracy theory, they are attacking abiogenesis, the first formation of life, because we don't have all the pieces yet. Still doesn't help apologists?
joelr
Well-Known Member
There are more people who believe Hinduism, Judaism and Islam than Christians. Christianity is 1/3 of all religious believers.
Why would gaps in a theory be a problem? Science doesn't make stuff up so if there is unexplained data it's going to remain until a solution is shown to be probable.
You think there are gaps that hurt the theory overall? What gaps?
Where do scientists do that and why would fossil gaps undermine the vast amount of evidence? What papers have you read that describe scientists projecting what they think happened between fossil remnants?
Audie
Veteran Member
Actually, far far less than you imagine
that you see.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Right, and many people have also concluded that the 50 Shades of Grey Series is the best books in the world. I don't care about opinions because they tend to be wrong (for example....), I care about evidence, facts, reasons why, proof, ....
All of which you completely lack, on every point. For example, you ignore the post and draw a conclusion, without presenting facts, methodology, or any such thing. So if you ever learn why you hold certain beliefs in what looks to be fiction, or can reasonably demonstrate it's not, let me know.
!!!! OK, you have just shown that you know nothing AT ALL about the subject. The hydrogen atom is one of the first actual applications of quantum mechanics. In sense, it defines what the quantum level is.
It is literally all through the book. They don't mention it because it is simply assumed.
No citation given. A book citation is a three legged dog in a horse race.
Interesting article on time dilation and the difference between the time in Quantum scale and large scale world.
Helpful definition:
What do you mean by decoherence?
/ (ˌdiːkəʊˈhɪərəns) / noun. physics the process in which a system's behaviour changes from that which can be explained by quantum mechanics to that which can be explained by classical mechanics.
Relativity’s time dilation may limit the quantum world
Theoretical calculations suggest time dilation may cause systems to decohere.arstechnica.com
Relativity’s time dilation may limit the quantum world
Theoretical calculations suggest time dilation may cause systems to decohere.
Schrödinger's cat is an example of a quantum system which might and myriad other interactions.
University of Houston/Andrew Boyd
74WITH
A new theoretical paper has tackled the phenomenon of quantum decoherence, the process by which objects slip out of the quantum world and start behaving classically. The paper approaches this in a new way by applying an effect of general relativity to decoherence. The paper claims that gravity is the key to the disparity between the weird quantum world and the everyday, familiar world of human-sized objects in which we live.
Decoherence is a concept central to quantum mechanics. Essentially, a quantum particle, unlike a macroscopic object, can exist in a superposition of different states. This means that in a real, physical way, it exists in all those different states at the same time (with varying probabilities; the stronger the probability of a state, the more strongly the particle inhabits that state).
Enter your email to get the Ars Technica newsletter
These quantum states include things like the particle’s spin, charge, energy, and location. So in effect, when a particle is in a super-position, it can be in multiple places at once—like when photons or particles interfere with themselves. This marks the obvious difference with our macroscopic world, where we can never see an object inhabiting two places at the same time. (Or spinning in two directions at the same time for that matter and so on.)
Big vs. small
But coherence is fragile. Any interactions with the particle’s environment can make the particle decohere. When it does, all those simultaneous states collapse to a single state, and things start behaving in a more intuitive, classical manner. The more a particle interacts with its environment, the further it decoheres and the fewer states it occupies.
That may be why we observe larger objects acting like they have just one location. Large objects are more complex and interact with their environments in a myriad of ways, so they're always acting classically. The larger the system, in other words, the less likely it is that it would ever occupy a superposition of states. But it’s not clear exactly where the cutoff line is. Researchers have been able to observe larger and larger objects (including microscopic ones) exhibiting quantum behavior, but they’ve no hope of ever observing this in large objects like soccer balls, much less in humans. So what’s the biggest thing that can be observed to exist in a superposition? And why?
Advertisement
To answer this question, the researchers examined decoherence in the presence of gravitational time dilation, which is a consequence of general relativity. Time dilation is a well established, if perhaps counterintuitive, phenomenon. Basically, the closer a clock is to a gravitational field (like the Earth), the less time it will measure compared to a clock further away.
And this isn’t just an illusion—the two clocks will actually experience different passages of time. If instead of clocks, they were people born on the same day at the same time, one would gradually become older than the other. This is a noticeable enough effect that GPS satellites have to compensate for it, lest they get out of sync with the ground and give wrong directions.
QUANTUM GRAVITY?
It’s worth noting that, while it might be tempting to think that the new research might provide insight into a theory of quantum gravity, this doesn’t seem to be the case. Both physicist Sabine Hossenfelder and Igor Pikovski, the paper’s lead author, confirm this on Hossenfelder’s blog. Pikovski commented:
“The effect we describe is not related to quantum gravity in any way, but it is an effect where both, quantum theory and gravitational time dilation, are relevant. It is thus an effect based on the interplay between the two. But it follows from physics as we know it.”
The effects of gravity on quantum systems are often not studied, because it’s generally thought to become relevant only in the most extreme situations. Aside from special cases like black holes, gravity generally has a very weak influence on quantum particles, and is negligible compared to the other forces such particles experience.
But the researchers reasoned that time dilation might have a significant effect on a quantum system that changes with time. The researchers calculated the effect of time dilation on a quantum system that’s composed of multiple particles, like a molecule. The individual particles comprising these systems are vibrating constantly. But vibration occurs over time, so if there’s a difference in the rate time passes in the system, the researchers reasoned, it would cause the particles’ frequencies to get out of sync with each other.
The vibrating particles’ frequencies are entangled with the center of mass, so the center of mass decoheres when they get out of sync.
The results
The authors found that time dilation does cause decoherence in the system, at least to a degree. Under Earth’s gravity, according to their calculations, the system’s center of mass does decohere and essentially acts like a classical object. But it’s worth noting that the system as a whole does not. The individual particles moving around that center of mass can still exist in superpositions.
FURTHER READING
Particle-wave duality demonstrated with largest molecules yet
This would make a difference in two-slit experiments, since the center of mass would have to go through one of the slits, acting like a classical object rather than a quantum particle, which would change the outcome. But for other kinds of measurements, it might not.
“Alas, the effect is exceedingly tiny,” notes physicist Sabine Hossenfelder in her blog, “smaller even than the decoherence induced by the cosmic microwave background.”
Advertisement
Because their calculation didn’t include any other environmental effects that might cause decoherence, they claim the effect should happen even in a isolated system, with only gravity causing it to decohere. This has led to other sources reporting that quantum systems will decohere into just one state without any interaction with the environment besides gravity. This doesn’t seem to be the case; according to Hossenfelder, the effect would decohere the system slightly. In other words it would reduce the number of states the system can occupy, but it wouldn’t necessarily reduce that number to one. The system would still exist in a superposition.
To look into this further, the authors also calculate the time it would take a system to decohere completely (to a single state). This depends on the size and complexity of the system, so for an object the size of a human, it would take a thousandth of a second to decohere. But the decoherence time for smaller particles, like the ones commonly involved in quantum physics experiments, is much greater: about a year for a system made up of 100 or so particles.
Implications
So time dilation doesn’t seem to be the reason that systems decohere, though it’s probably one of many reasons. It could be a drop in a sea of effects causing decoherence.
This still could be an important discovery. Even if it doesn’t account for the full difference between the quantum world and the macroscopic one, it does contribute to it—and if scientists are to build a more detailed picture of the transition, they’ll need to take many different effects into account. The effect of time dilation may be a less prominent one, but it’s a piece of the puzzle nonetheless, and certainly a fascinating one.
"I am overjoyed to see any new ideas on the influence of gravity in quantum objects," said experimental physicist Holger Müller of the University of California at Berkeley, not part of the study’s team.
As with any theoretical work, the real test comes when it can... well, be tested. The authors use the final section of their paper to discuss possible tests. The key is to eliminate other sources of decoherence, which means the system being tested needs to be rather complex, and conditions have to be perfect. Experimenters would have to supercool the particles or introduce them to an ultrahigh vacuum to have any hope of observing the effect. Hossenfelder is skeptical that it can realistically be tested, but the authors remain optimistic. Only time, relativistically dilated or otherwise, will tell.
A number of comments:
1. An article in a popular magazine wins over a standard textbook on the subject? Really?
You rejected two standard and accepted textbooks on the subject of quantum theory and now propose an article in Ars Technica as authoritative?
2.. At no point is there any suggestion that space or time is discontinuous. In other words, this article simply doesn't support your claims. it is interesting, but not relevant to the claims you have made.
3. This is the result of *theoretical* calculations. They have not been verified observationally and so are speculation (although very interesting speculation).
4. Just to be clear, I am not doubting quantum mechanics or the theory of decoherence. Those are very well established.
5. As mentioned in the article, this has nothing to do with quantum gravity.
So, you have presented a popular article to counter a scholarly work. You have a theoretical calculation that has yet to be verified by observation. You have clearly misunderstood the article itself And
THIS ARTICLE DOES"T EVEN SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS.
Somehow, moving at 18 miles a second is the same as hanging......
I guess a bullet just hangs after it is shot.