Question about Quantum Theory

[HumbleMom]

Here is a link to an article I recently read about quantum theory. I have very little scientific background and would like to read your opinions/explainations of the claim made by the scientists that man’s observations of the cosmos have shortened the life of the universe. For a lay person such as myself, quantum theory is very difficult to understand. However, it does seem likely to me that if the simple observations and/or measurements made by human beings have the potential to change the course of the universe, then we are close to “proving” the existence of God. I realize my source may be flawed (and my understanding of it even more flawed), which is why I am posting it here and hoping for a discussion of what this all means. Thanks!
telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/21/scicosmos121.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox

 

[Pete_1]

:hypno:

 

[Laurence_of_PA]

But the bad is that quantum theory says that whenever we observe or measure something, we could stop it decaying due what is what is called the “quantum Zeno effect,” which suggests that if an “observer” makes repeated, quick observations of a microscopic object undergoing change, the object can stop changing - just as a watched kettle never boils.

From my own scientific inquiry in the field of cooking pasta, I have excitedly watched water on the stove for ten minutes straight!, and let me tell you, that water wasn’t at all afraid to get hot and steamy for my scientific pleasure!

 

[Pax]

Laurence,

Your careful and astute observations have been replicated at my home on the left coast. Please be advised that others have replicated this effect as well. I think your theory has been proven. Thank you for erasing my fears concerning the impending death of the universe. You have, however, increased my fears in regards to global warming. All of the boiling pots in and out of laboratories and kitchens have me twitching all over.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Here is a link to an article I recently read about quantum theory. I have very little scientific background and would like to read your opinions/explainations of the claim made by the scientists that man’s observations of the cosmos have shortened the life of the universe. For a lay person such as myself, quantum theory is very difficult to understand. However, it does seem likely to me that if the simple observations and/or measurements made by human beings have the potential to change the course of the universe, then we are close to “proving” the existence of God. I realize my source may be flawed (and my understanding of it even more flawed), which is why I am posting it here and hoping for a discussion of what this all means. Thanks!
telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/21/scicosmos121.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox

I would not take the theological speculation coming out of some of the science and theory too literally or over-credit what they mean by proof and observability etc. Even if scientifically valid, usually the effects are nonsensically trivial on a cosmological level to become less than the natural background “noise”.

I am one of those who believe that there is to be found in the amazing order and wonder of creation overwhelming evidence of the works of a Supreme Creator. But I don’t think God likes to reveal himself fully in mere nature and creation - he is infinitely more than that and infinitely more that we can perceive (as much as that sounds like a contradiction - but it’s metaphorically akin to “can’t see the forest for the trees” or “can’t see the Universe for the atoms”). The deeper that physicists and scientists dig into the subatomic elements of matter to explain what keeps it all together the more I think the most intelligent ones are coming away with the realization that God is in there somehow holding it all together (but by Divine Will not by physical presence).

Also, be cautious with some of the pseudo-science that is out there (though the guy mentioned in the link sounds legit). But there are a lot of new age and alternative energy/pseudo-science mystic-alchemy sites all over that are masquerading as sort of pseudo-science/rational-mystics. I wouldn’t fall too much for these perspectives either - eventually they usually tout some kind of mystical hocus-pocus or a false religion of an evolved humanity or new human species etc.

It might be worth keeping in mind that God does not need for anyone to prove he exists. But for some reason having “Faith” in him is extremely important to Him - more so than intellect or discovery of deeper understanding of his works. I suppose that Faith may be taken as an active expression of Love and Trust. So there is perhaps a spiritual reason of His own why He is selective in how he reveals Himself. What we do not know for certain is the extent man’s participation is within His Plan. But the theology certainly suggests a partnership or cooperation of a sort.

But even if we could change the future through human means by observing it before it happened it would still have to be within Divine Plan - or God would not permit us to observe it. It is His plan not ours. But humanity already has within it’s grasp the one thing we already can change the future. That is the power of prayer working through God. So therein we already can do anything that falls within God’s Will by becoming instruments of His Will. And what God wills is for us all to love each other and Him. That is the key to all the power in the universe.

That’s a pretty awesome power God gives humanity. With that bit of knowledge all anyone need do is get close to God and pray for anything that is a proper choice within His Divine Plan.

uhh, uh-oh, I thing someone is praying I need to shut up now…

poof

James

 

[Joe_Kelley]

From my own scientific inquiry in the field of cooking pasta, I have excitedly watched water on the stove for ten minutes straight!, and let me tell you, that water wasn’t at all afraid to get hot and steamy for my scientific pleasure!

Note that it is only the water that boils. I have watched kettles for days; only the water boils - never the kettle.

 

[Pax]

Yes, I verified that too.

 

[Laurence_of_PA]

Beyond our lame attempts at humor, I sort of wish that someone more knowledgeable in this area (like Heisenburg I think) could provide Humblemom with a more meaningful answer.

There’s nothing great about having the blind leading the blind…

(except that *our *eyes can’t change the fate of the universe )

 

[quasimodo]

Even if scientifically valid, usually the effects are nonsensically trivial on a cosmological level to become less than the natural background “noise”.

I believe this is the key.

All of the theories we have now, with all of their elegant mathematics, are approximations. They break down at the extremes. The extremes are what we are discussing here. Their math probably “proves” more (far more) than the theory can support.

 

[CentralFLJames]

I believe this is the key.

All of the theories we have now, with all of their elegant mathematics, are approximations. They break down at the extremes. The extremes are what we are discussing here. Their math probably “proves” more (far more) than the theory can support.

That part I bolded I resonate with. What is proves is the utter arrogance and futility of trying to pin-down and emulate or approximate anything created by God much less prove he exists through anything conceivable to a mortal mind or the workings therein. There is sufficient evidence in Creation and in the presence of self to compel a natural faith in God.

Jesus already came and spiritually proved that God exists. Of course everyone believes what they want and those with no spiritual senses can not accept that which even also exists in a physical sense. The irony is that even if God had placed a celestial beacon somewhere in Space that said to astronomers “See By This Sign That I Exist and What I Say Is True” that was spoken in a universal language they still would not believe. No, the greater part of humanity would seek to accredit it to aliens or some other spontaneous random ejaculation or such nonsense.

In fact God has implanted such a sign in the heavens. Some scientists know its there but are not widely making this known. It is ticking down toward a time when it will reveal itself to even men with ordinary common vision to see as clear as lightning in the sky. Still many will not believe.

We should be less concerned about proofs of God through the approximations of science and if not thankful that “He Is” we should at least hope that “He Is”.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

Beyond our lame attempts at humor, I sort of wish that someone more knowledgeable in this area (like Heisenburg I think) could provide Humblemom with a more meaningful answer.

There’s nothing great about having the blind leading the blind…

(except that *our *eyes can’t change the fate of the universe )

That’s a wide net you cast in the direction of “we” fella. You wound “us” all in a not so funny a way yourself.

In God’s Justice, a blind faith is actually more meritorious to a soul than perfect knowledge that God exists. Perhaps that’s why he most often hides and only reveals himself after one has first seen him completely in the light of their faith.

The bride is still being perfected - the baby comes after. We will hear the crying of labor soon and plain enough.

James

 

[MarcoPolo]

man’s observations of the cosmos have shortened the life of the universe.

Here’s a fun little cartoon showing the mysterious role of the “observer” in the quantum “double-slit” experiment.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Here’s a fun little cartoon showing the mysterious role of the “observer” in the quantum “double-slit” experiment.

Thanks MP, that was an interesting and informative conceptual rendering of the effect. It gets my creative juices flowing.

My way of thinking tends toward a preference for generalizing and abstracting specific concepts or principals in such a way that they can be more easily manipulated mentally to “play” with them philosophically to see if I can find new relationships or create something useful or “interesting” or derive a truth that may be of future benefit to self or others.

One way I can choose to generalize the double-slit experiment is to note the implicitness of a singular relationship in the single slit case and the dual relationship in the double slit case between each slit with itself and with light seen separately as matter, wave and as both mass and wave. There are other relationships as well between target (wall) and observer and light etc.

I personally do not have sufficient mental agility to conceptualize all the possible interactions arising from all the combinations of relationships present in this generalized construct though. I am more naturally oriented toward distilling things to smaller numbers of exceptions. So without trying to immediately understand the complexity of a thing I try to conceptualize the interacting elements as categories or entities onto themselves. From there I try to discover exceptions or non-intuitive differences in how the entities relate and interact with each other from what I might extend from a repository of human behavioral experiences; assumptions being some common divine pattern exists in nature.

In this experiment I see consistently repeatable cooperation. That implies rational behavior - not random or stochastic phenomena. In this sense I also take note of the intriguing and apparent truth that the double slit implies a choice. More particularly it induces a dilemma, to both the observer as well as the carrier of information (light in both of its humanly modeled forms, or arising from the nature that extends from its relational senses - e.g. both particle and wave “apparentness”). From this encounter and through a natural mechanism of empathy arising from a human observer through the sense of vision to the thing(s) being observed we form a natural attachment or a complex relationship. What we are in essence attempting to do in this specific encounter is characterize the relationships between multiple entities involved (slit) without being drawn into participate in that relationship (perhaps impossible). That is the dilemma and perhaps the impossibility in the experiment since every encounter requires at least two “things” to form a relationship (even an internal encounter with self requires a relationship with “self” – an identity relationship). In this constructed vignette we are also perhaps naturally as members of creation by universal principal to be invited by the entities involved to participate in an episodic relationship of opportunity. Perhaps here we are really compelled by the very principal of existence that leaves us no choice but to participate, as if to embrace, dance or “play” in the encounter; certainly there is a witness relationship that we impose or assume (is it more impolite to impose an assumption of invitation or to refuse an assumption of one?).
It is intuitive to me that even thinking to form a relationship, without regard to proximity of physical entities makes it impossible to not interact with anything at some level. The principal of existence or even an imagined existence may form the potential for a relationship. That is consistent with Jesus’ statement about sinning (and I presume its opposite praying for benefit) in the mind without the deed.

This experiment gives rise to an intimacy that may form its own sentience that speaks, among other things, the question "What makes the selection and observation of one slit or the other, as apparent equals more “preferred” to the other?” Is it not in fact a judgment or a rule of nature?

[continued with next post]

 

[CentralFLJames]

[continued from prior post]
I see here a principal of duality in nature and creation. On one hand all things in nature seems to serve complex purposes and on another hand an observer, while being part of that same creation are always naturally invited to examine, wonder or even attach themselves, “together” in some sort of relationship that is suitable to the nature of each. Clearly things of a similar form naturally attract themselves and interact more intimately than things of dissimilar forms (polarity can be both repulsive and attractive at certain proximities). This all implies a natural tendency or nature for us humans to want to “commune” or relate to a greater or lesser degree (both in the sense of positive or negative magnitude and direction of attraction/repulsion/respect when incompatible) with all things; including new concepts (thoughts/information/truths) arising from those deliberate or seemingly spontaneous interactions (in fact born, discovered or even annihilated as a natural consequence of proven incompatibility to prove the error with respect to a relationship).

I know I am getting deep here and perhaps too introspective for others to follow (and to maintain my own sanity LOL). But what I wanted to convey is that this experiment implies to me that the phenomena arising from this is an opportunity for creation’s entities to form a relationship. In this case the dissimilarities of natures present a dilemma to the essence or nature of the thing being observed (light). My thesis is that what we call “light” naturally wants to relate to the slit(s) as well as the observer as do each of those things to it (light); but it also wants to attain what is the apparent mission - i.e. manifesting an expression or dimension of its existence to the target on the wall. But the human in the loop invites a more intimate interaction through active sensing outside itself. Thus there is an opportunity for a feedback phenomena of perceiving as will as inducing through the (name removed by moderator)ut that reflects back in the observer’s expectations or response to discovery.

Closer to earth, the experiment does not take into account that it also forms an active role in the relationship in willing the episode. It gives rise to the revelation that will can manifest real effects – sometimes a mystery. I note also that the observer attempts to simultaneously witness both the secondary cause-and-effect relationship of the light making a choice on how to manifest itself to the slits as well as how light presents its choice in the pattern on the target; as if they are in the same temporal event or interaction relationship. And that I speculate is that they are not in the same interaction any more so than the observer has not touched the system to make it universally observable.

The results I see are metaphorically akin to what happens when a human becomes naturally shy or feels “naked” or self conscience when it is being watched. The preferred intimate behaviors are modified; and the full intimacy of the private relationship with self and others is held reserved (in fact becomes “modest” since all involved want to relate but in a proper or an equitable way).

This is getting way too abstract and I could regress on this endlessly. So I better stop here and just conclude that this experiment ratifies the futility of trying to witness phenomena who’s Nyquist criteria is higher than the frequency that we can possibly perceive. How does one physically super-sample the speed of light? The sampling intervals implied by Heisenberg’s uncertainty principal virtually guarantees that there are some workings (no doubt an infinite number) of God that man can not ever be contained within the confines of mortal thought - least even, conjectured beyond what we can see or imagine. At a philosophical level this experiment implies to me that God reveals and relates to humanity and creation both at an individual and intimately personal level as well as universal level and also permits humanity to relate to his creation in a governed way. He asserts time and time again the matter of fact truth that He is much more than we can ever perceive or fully witness by self or all together; yet through his works he seems to invite us to marvel and relate to him to the degree that he permits.

Egad, in re-reading this I may have crossed over to the point of ascending to the insanity that St. Augustine (I think it was) warned about in trying to fathom God and His works…

James