-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Quantum Mechanics and Omniscience
- Thread starter Sparky
- Start date
desertedcities
New Member
Heh, makes sense.
Ozymandyus
New Member
Yeah, I Wish. You should see the shit process theologians thrown out on this stuff - to them it Proves the possibility of an omniscient/omnipresent/omnipotent God if anything. Sadly, you just can't disprove the existence of God at all by any knowledge of the physical world, because 'he' is metaphysical - he does not follow the laws. We can disprove the existence of the God of the Bible at least, we'll have to stay happy with that.
djarm67
New Member
I think the issue is not so much quantum uncertainty, but the nature of our definition of omniscience. A simplistic view of theistic omniscience has a God who knows all things including all of the choices you would make which then bodes poorly for the concept of free will and is more akin to a Calvinistic view. A more complex view of theistic omniscience has a God who knows all possible futures but relies on our free will to make those decisions and determine which of the possible futures becomes reality. This would be more akin to an Arminianistic view of a theistic deity.
DJ
DJ
djarm67 said:
Deep! I guess it depends upon your views on free will and determinism as to which view of omniscience you choose to use. I'm caught a bit with both of these - I don't think either are true based on my understanding of quantum mechanics, chemistry and physics. Whether I am right or not is different though
This kind of "reasoning" has more holes in it than my old socks
It assumes that there is a god.
It assumes this god is a person-like entity
It assumes he/she/it is omniscient.
If you accept that many assumptions as true, you can make any argument you want.
But...let's play the game with their rules:
There is a god, he is a person and he can see all potential waveforms in the universe. This means that all waveforms in the universe have collapsed instantaneously to one of their potential actualities. Which is to say, all waveforms in the universe have assumed a physical appearance.
Congratulations, we've just proved that stuff exists.
Now, god is aware of all the stuff in the universe because he can observe it all at once, which is completely irrelevant to me and you because we can only observe a limited, finite amount of stuff.
So in conclusion god exists, is omniscient, but he is completely irrelevant.
It assumes that there is a god.
It assumes this god is a person-like entity
It assumes he/she/it is omniscient.
If you accept that many assumptions as true, you can make any argument you want.
But...let's play the game with their rules:
There is a god, he is a person and he can see all potential waveforms in the universe. This means that all waveforms in the universe have collapsed instantaneously to one of their potential actualities. Which is to say, all waveforms in the universe have assumed a physical appearance.
Congratulations, we've just proved that stuff exists.
Now, god is aware of all the stuff in the universe because he can observe it all at once, which is completely irrelevant to me and you because we can only observe a limited, finite amount of stuff.
So in conclusion god exists, is omniscient, but he is completely irrelevant.
Two remarks:
1) Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. It's impossible to determine both the position and momentum of a particle at the same time. The more accurately its position is known at a given moment in time, the less accurately its momentum, and vice versa. Even if the observation itself doesn't influence the particle. And consequently, its future position and momentum cannot be determined.
2) Simultaneity of two different events has no meaning in relativity.
Of course, magical beings are not restricted by the physical laws they created, right?
Ozymandyus
New Member
See, I don't understand this idea. I can measure the EXACT speed and position of a particle. Give me an electron gun, a single hole in an electron blocking sheet, and an electron sensing wall. Then, let me fire electrons one at a time at the wall. I can measure the time that it takes for the electron to travel from the gun to the wall, and I know if it made it to the wall it was Exactly at the hole in the center of the electron blocking surface and what velocity it was travelling at that time...
I know for some reason this isn't true... ah well, guess I just will never understand the Heisenburg uncertainty principle.
I know for some reason this isn't true... ah well, guess I just will never understand the Heisenburg uncertainty principle.
Ozymandyus
New Member
I'm pretty sure they do. Would make it really hard to use an electron microscope if they didn't.
I should add that photons etc obviously also travel in a straight path - otherwise all images would just be nonsense. Something being represented by a wave does not mean that it doesn't travel in a straight line.
I should add that photons etc obviously also travel in a straight path - otherwise all images would just be nonsense. Something being represented by a wave does not mean that it doesn't travel in a straight line.
Ozymandyus said:
Don't feel too bad about it
Here's what some great people involved with quantum mechanics had to say about it.
"If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet"
Niels Bohr
and of course
"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics"
Richard Feynman
Ozymandyus
New Member
Any chance you know why its not true? I would love a good explanation.
I love quantum physics but I only know That it works not How it works. Which drives me crazy because I really care about how stuff works.
I love quantum physics but I only know That it works not How it works. Which drives me crazy because I really care about how stuff works.
Well, the accuracy of an electron microscope is determined by the de Broglie wavelength of the electrons. So no, they don't move on exactly straight paths, nor do photons, at least not on microscopic scales.Ozymandyus said:
I know what you mean. Quantum mechanics is extremely counter-intuitive. We can't help to think of particles as little marbles, so these wave properties are truly bizarre. It's been 10 years since I had classes on quantum mechanics, so I've forgotten most, but I remember thinking back then "I don't get what you're trying to tell, professor, but if you say so..."
The classic example of the particle-wave duality is the double-slit experiment.
Ozymandyus
New Member
The PATH is still straight though. A car that is vibrating like crazy on the highway is still moving in a straight line. If it wasn't a straight line we would not be able to form the image... the connection to the De-Broglie wavelength is only about the fact that electrons have smaller wavelengths than light and therefore can show greater resolution - it still works by the same principles of reflection, varying absorbtion and refraction off of various surfaces. We trace the differences in the reflections to determine the distance between the electron microscope and the surfaces - it requires electrons traveling in straight paths to the surface. It's not like the electrons and light are changing overall direction all the time - they are moving in predictable paths.
Shooting electrons or photons through a single slit shows an expected pattern of a straight line drawn from the laser or electron gun through the slit TO the sensor wall, we don't see the pattern of a wave on the sensor. So in this case they do travel in a particular path. And in this case it seems we could determine both the exact velocity and the position of the particle.
I know all about the double slit experiment of course, but it's not the ONLY thing to consider. Of course, quantum effects are extremely good at predicting things and it is obviously good science, but I can't help but wonder about it.
Shooting electrons or photons through a single slit shows an expected pattern of a straight line drawn from the laser or electron gun through the slit TO the sensor wall, we don't see the pattern of a wave on the sensor. So in this case they do travel in a particular path. And in this case it seems we could determine both the exact velocity and the position of the particle.
I know all about the double slit experiment of course, but it's not the ONLY thing to consider. Of course, quantum effects are extremely good at predicting things and it is obviously good science, but I can't help but wonder about it.
Electrons and photons do form single-slit diffraction patterns.Ozymandyus said:
Ozymandyus
New Member
That's odd, when I performed this experiment in physics lab 8 years ago I don't recall any diffraction pattern with a single beam through a single slit. In fact, how could you even have a 'beam' if photons don't travel in a straight path? How would a laser work, without a clear straight path?
If you have a laser, you know the exact speed of the photons, and you know where they will strike and when: exactly in a straight line from the laser And exactly (distance/speed of light) seconds after you turn on the laser.
I suppose that determining the precise position of the particle within its wavelength is the problem. At least thats the only thing I can conceive of as a problem. So if we know precisely how fast a particle is moving, we can only know that it is somewhere within its wave-length - i.e. for gamma rays for example could only be pinpointed to within 10^-5 nm?
If you have a laser, you know the exact speed of the photons, and you know where they will strike and when: exactly in a straight line from the laser And exactly (distance/speed of light) seconds after you turn on the laser.
I suppose that determining the precise position of the particle within its wavelength is the problem. At least thats the only thing I can conceive of as a problem. So if we know precisely how fast a particle is moving, we can only know that it is somewhere within its wave-length - i.e. for gamma rays for example could only be pinpointed to within 10^-5 nm?
Ozymandyus said:
I will not pretend to be an expert in quantum mechanics and what I am about to tell you is a mere recollection from my quantum mechanics class several years ago.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says that you cannot accurately measure simultaneously both the position and the momentum of a particle. The more you know about one the less you know about the other. Also as you observe the position of a particle you change its momentum and viceversa, so it becomes impossible to accurately determine simultaneously both position and momentum at any given instant. This disturbance, if you will, of the system is not a limitation of our technology, but it is intrinsic in the system. In other words, even with infinitely more advanced instrumentation, we would still not be able to observe the posititon of a particle without changing its momentum.
That's what I remember....I had a hard time wrapping my mind around it then, and I certainly don't claim to understand it any better now. :?