The Quatum leap out of nothing

[Linusthe2nd]

Innocente
It is true that quantum mechanics, specifically Erwin Schrodinger’s wave equation, was the basis for the development of semiconductor devices, but it was had nothing to do with the design of such devices and it certainly did not have much to do with “making it work”.

The design of integrated circuits, the heart of the computer and associated devices, was based on the logic developed my a mathematician/logician/philosopher named Georg Boole. The design of computers was the work primarily of mathematicians such as Alan Turing and John von Neumann. The whole structure of electronic computation rests on Boole’s logic (a branch of philosophy). As far as computers are concerned, Boole’s logic is more important than Schrodinger’s science; computers were made with vacuum tubes before the transistor was invented.

As far as “making it work”, quantum mechanics had very little to do with that. The modern electronic devices happened mostly because of technology, specifically engineering technology, not science. I could, if you like, fill a couple of pages listing the essential steps that had to be solved technically before any of our amazing devices could be “made to work”. Very few of those steps were the result of what could be called science.

Yppop

Innocent’s statement was that all this depended on quantum mechanics. This is something I personally doubt, though I certainly couldn’t begin to prove it. Perhaps you could give give a one page explanation if this is true. You wouldn’t have to give all the math, just explain to us where it applies and why.

Linus2nd

 

[StrawberryJam]

@ Iron Donkey

The Church has not answered a single question in this matter.

It is only upon faith and belief and authority it stands on.

No evidence need apply.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Innocente
It is true that quantum mechanics, specifically Erwin Schrodinger’s wave equation, was the basis for the development of semiconductor devices, but it was had nothing to do with the design of such devices and it certainly did not have much to do with “making it work”.

The design of integrated circuits, the heart of the computer and associated devices, was based on the logic developed my a mathematician/logician/philosopher named Georg Boole. The design of computers was the work primarily of mathematicians such as Alan Turing and John von Neumann. The whole structure of electronic computation rests on Boole’s logic (a branch of philosophy). As far as computers are concerned, Boole’s logic is more important than Schrodinger’s science; computers were made with vacuum tubes before the transistor was invented.

As far as “making it work”, quantum mechanics had very little to do with that. The modern electronic devices happened mostly because of technology, specifically engineering technology, not science. I could, if you like, fill a couple of pages listing the essential steps that had to be solved technically before any of our amazing devices could be “made to work”. Very few of those steps were the result of what could be called science.

Yppop

You are claiming that technology is not science.

Are you claiming technology is religion?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus what makes something “justified” seems to be the ultimate rub of your question.

I believe the best model for even comprehending/unifying different experiments in the unnatural world of sub-atomic Physics involves hypothesising that some “particles” (even that is not the right word) spontaneously come in and out of sensible existence.

This model is “justified” it seems only because other more “natural” models do not do as good a job at unifying these different experiments in such a way that “reality” (whatever that is) is wholly and consistently “explicable”.

Not that “particles” popping in and out of existence is terribly “explicable” anyway but perhaps that is better than nothing.

Sounds pretty metaphysical to me - but maybe not the Metaphysics of Aristotle or Aquinas… maybe.

The point is, lots of weak minded, touring Cosmologist wanna-bes translate this fantasy into reality and the whole world suddenly says, " the universe created itself. " This travesty is all over U-Tube, etc. All the young skulls full of mush at the universities are repeating the same idiocy - even Catholics, even old Catholics ( some right here) . The world seems to have gone mad.

Linus2nd

 

[StrawberryJam]

On the other hand,

“No experiment should be believed until is has been confirmed by theory."

Sir Arthur Eddington,

Yppop

Does Sir Arthur Eddington have a say on anything anymore than you or I do?

Ask yourself that.

 

[StrawberryJam]

The point is, lots of weak minded, touring Cosmologist wanna-bes translate this fantasy into reality and the whole world suddenly says, " the universe created itself. " This travesty is all over U-Tube, etc. All the young skulls full of mush at the universities are repeating the same idiocy - even Catholics, even old Catholics ( some right here) . The world seems to have gone mad.

Linus2nd

I am wondering what is threatening your belief system so much to have to think that science has a declaritive stand on this.
Maybe you are one that is most comfortable with “knowing” everything now.
Science has no room for you. Know what you are told to know. Move away and let us do the heavy lifting.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The point is, lots of weak minded, touring Cosmologist wanna-bes translate this fantasy into reality and the whole world suddenly says, " the universe created itself. " This travesty is all over U-Tube, etc. All the young skulls full of mush at the universities are repeating the same idiocy - even Catholics, even old Catholics ( some right here) . The world seems to have gone mad.

Linus2nd

“The universe created itself.” Hmmmnnn.
I suppose this could be true in the sense that there may be an underlying all pervading “non-sensible” corporeal substance which interfaces to our sensible world via sub-atomic “particles” that come in and out of “sensible existence” as they cross-over or are “formed” at the interface.

But, as you rightly suggest, then we have to ask where this pre-existing non-sensible substance comes from.

Aquinas, if he had the scientific tools we have today, would perhaps consider such a substance to be similar to unusual substances on the borderline between the corporeal and incorporeal that he mentions in SCG 30, 65 (“corpora invisibilia”),71 or perhaps similar to his understanding of the “Primum Mobile.”

 

[StrawberryJam]

“The universe created itself.” Hmmmnnn.
I suppose this could be true in the sense that there may be an underlying all pervading “non-sensible” corporeal substance which interfaces to our sensible world via sub-atomic “particles” that come in and out of “sensible existence” as they cross-over or are “formed” at the interface.

But, as you rightly suggest, then we have to ask where this pre-existing non-sensible substance comes from.

Aquinas, if he had the scientific tools we have today, would perhaps consider such a substance to be similar to unusual substances on the borderline between the corporeal and incorporeal that he mentions in SCG 30, 65 (“corpora invisibilia”),71 or perhaps similar to his understanding of the “Primum Mobile.”

Give me any citation that anyone claims the universe created itself

And, you will see there is no answer to this yet
No answer that science can feel confident in and stop looking
Dogma stops the process of looking for anything
answers are given to you

 

[Iron_Donkey]

@ Iron Donkey

The Church has not answered a single question in this matter.

It is only upon faith and belief and authority it stands on.

No evidence need apply.

A) Simply not true (and you are ignoring the men who were motivated by their religion to expand science), and B) science, contrary to your past claims, not only hasn’t but can’t answer the fundamental philosophical questions. Seeking answers is great, but it shouldn’t stop you from realizing when you have them already.

I assume you include “reason says so” under the heading of evidence. If you only accept things that can be physically tested, and not things that are seen by reason alone, then that is a separate issue to address (and, as a matter of interest, you also throw out mathematics). I will give a very, very brief rundown.

1. That God exists: The contingency argument. The only built in assumptions are that the universe is generally reasonable and so that questions have answers, and that there is stuff. This is enough to get that there is some self-explanatory thing. Though not by itself, as people like to point out, enough to tell you anything about this thing - rather it just names the thing God and says that it is the “first cause,” the principle, the non-contingent thing. At this point in the argument, “God” could refer to an eternally existing, self explanatory kangaroo for all we know, if such could logically exist.
2. That God isn’t an eternally existing, self explanatory Kangaroo, but rather has several of the properties that monotheists say He does: A string of arguments building upon the previous. Each of the the attributes is linked here newadvent.org/summa/1.htm and defended by reason alone. Therefore God is good, simple, omnipotent, etc, etc.
3. That God cares about us: we exist. By the above, things that God did not love would cease to exist. A little involved in the above, to be sure, but simplicity together with goodness and essence is existence show this.
4. That humans are fallen: blindingly obvious. One need only look at what we do to one another.
5. That God would want to fix our falleness - God loves us (3), which means willing the good of the other (dfn). The good of a fallen being is to have the opportunity to be repaired (if possible without somehow violating the good of that being or doing something otherwise evil).

Without mentioning revelation at all, we have already answered several of the questions:

Why is there something rather than nothing? Because there is an eternal principle of action, of existence, of goodness, the lack of which would be a contradiction (assuming a reasonable sort of world where questions can be asked and answered).

What is the meaning of life? There is an eternal principle of good. The only possible meaning or goal can be to follow it, because it is meaning itself.

Now, to continue:

1. That God’s desire to fix us would entail some sort of interaction with us: duh. You can’t fix something without dealing with it.
2. That we would notice: if God wanted to fix us by snapping His fingers and setting things right then (we can see without even bothering into getting into the details of why He wouldn’t do so that) He would have done so, and we wouldn’t still be noticing all of the general suckage that’s around. The alternative to finger snapping is an invitation, and you can’t have a stealth invitation.

So now we have that there was or will be some interaction and we noticed/will notice. This is called revelation.

The only question now is “has the revelation happened, and if so what was it?” I propose that the answer is “yes, and it was the Incarnation, the founding of the Catholic Church and some other stuff.” For evidence, I present the Gospels, the testimony of the early Christians, the facts that many people were so convinced that it was true close enough to the time when it is believed to have happened that they endured being horribly put to death when a simple denial would have saved their lives, the fact that the institution which claims this purported event (the existence of which is unquestionable, even if one questions the miraculousness of it) is still around and still teaching things compatible with what it did then despite numerous internal and external attacks on it, etc, etc.

At this point we’re on to the evidence time, and it becomes a case of saying “given that revelation is not only possible, but expected, was this it?” I’m not going to be able to get into the supporting evidence in any detail right here and now, but there are books and books on the subject. If the answer is “yes” or even “it seems likely” then the logical next step is to treat it as true. And if it is true, THEN, and only then, do the issues of authority and the like come in. Authority plays a role when we say “I have accepted that this institution was founded by and is guarded against error by God because such seems reasonable. I have this other tangential question. This institution that is guarded by God says the answer is X. Therefore, the answer is X.” Authority is not “well, I dunno, but the people in funny hats say so, so I guess.”

Similarly, faith is not the acceptance of things contrary to reason. Things that are contrary to reason are false. Faith is the acceptance of those things that reason has confirmed (even if indirectly, via the authority argument) and the incorporation of those things into our lives even when our gut feeling tells us not to. Pretty much everyone, no matter what they believe, has moments when their beliefs seem like nonsense, and seem so for no reason whatsoever. Faith is not giving in to that.

 

[inocente]

Innocente
It is true that quantum mechanics, specifically Erwin Schrodinger’s wave equation, was the basis for the development of semiconductor devices, but it was had nothing to do with the design of such devices and it certainly did not have much to do with “making it work”.

The design of integrated circuits, the heart of the computer and associated devices, was based on the logic developed my a mathematician/logician/philosopher named Georg Boole. The design of computers was the work primarily of mathematicians such as Alan Turing and John von Neumann. The whole structure of electronic computation rests on Boole’s logic (a branch of philosophy). As far as computers are concerned, Boole’s logic is more important than Schrodinger’s science; computers were made with vacuum tubes before the transistor was invented.

As far as “making it work”, quantum mechanics had very little to do with that. The modern electronic devices happened mostly because of technology, specifically engineering technology, not science. I could, if you like, fill a couple of pages listing the essential steps that had to be solved technically before any of our amazing devices could be “made to work”. Very few of those steps were the result of what could be called science.

You may have gone off at a tangent here, as I didn’t say computers couldn’t exist, I said chips couldn’t exist without quantum theory, since the properties of semiconductors would not be understood. There is a poster who argues that all science is entirely redundant in engineering as inventors get their ideas without ever learning any science and make the most complex devices by trail and error alone, but that seems a bit wishful.

Though it’s always good to meet someone who knows about Turing machines and Boolean algebra, we are a band of brothers.

 

[inocente]

Yeah, QED is a fairly robust theory. Of course, just because of how things work and using the logical terms theory as “set of sentences” and model as “thing in which those sentences are true,” it would be very difficult to show that the theory itself is true (satisfied, more technically), but it is certainly true (under the assumptions that the universe is reasonable and that observations are real) that if QED is false then that any model of whatever the true theory is will have to agree with the standard model of QED pretty much everywhere where QED isn’t currently having issues.

Which isn’t to say that I doubt the basics of QED, but it is worth pointing out that it does have some problems that are still getting worked out, and it’s not clear what will change when these are worked out. But where it works, it works very well indeed.

I guess a perfect theory would herald the end of physics, it would have to be a theory of everything, if such an animal is possible.

*Yup, though of very different sorts.

Most of those who deny that Aquinas’ first cause thing shows God exists, because they say that they think an eternal universe can fill the same role, do so because ALL they have read is the first cause argument, and have not read any of the things that can be deduced about this first cause. (Those who say “but what caused God” are simply not paying attention to the argument.)

Various lines of reasoning can show that this first cause must be unchanging, simple, pure act (no potential), etc etc - all kinds of things that don’t apply and can’t apply to any physical thing.*

I very much doubt those lines of reasoning, for example actus/potentia appears to rely on human-centric folk notions incompatible with what we now know of the world.

I’m not feeling at all lonely though, having recently spotted a large survey of professional philosophers - if you look at section 3, starting page 11, you’ll see they disagree big time on absolutely everything.

What Do Philosophers Believe? - Bourget, Chalmers (pdf)

 

[inocente]

The point is, lots of weak minded, touring Cosmologist wanna-bes translate this fantasy into reality and the whole world suddenly says, " the universe created itself. " This travesty is all over U-Tube, etc. All the young skulls full of mush at the universities are repeating the same idiocy - even Catholics, even old Catholics ( some right here) . The world seems to have gone mad.

Nostalgia is not what it used to be. And yet your parents thought exactly the same about you. Run for the hills, the children are running amok, we are undone, oh woe, etc.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

You may have gone off at a tangent here, as I didn’t say computers couldn’t exist, I said chips couldn’t exist without quantum theory, since the properties of semiconductors would not be understood. There is a poster who argues that all science is entirely redundant in engineering as inventors get their ideas without ever learning any science and make the most complex devices by trail and error alone, but that seems a bit wishful.

Though it’s always good to meet someone who knows about Turing machines and Boolean algebra, we are a band of brothers.

You should read Longitude, if you haven’t yet.
It is ‘The True Story of a Lone Genius Who Solved the Greatest Scientific Problem of His Time’

From the back cover:
“Longitude is the dramatic human story of an epic scientific quest. The ‘Longitude problem’ was the thorniest dilemma of the eighteenth century. Lacking the ability to measure longitude, sailors throughout the great ages of exploration had been literally lost at sea.
At the heart of Dava Sobel’s fascinating brief history of astronomy, navigation and horology stands the figure of John Harrison, self taught Yorkshire clockmaker, and his forty-year obsession with building the perfect timekeeper. Battling against the establishment, Harrison stood alone in persuit of his solution and the £20,000 reward offered by parliament.”
Harrison was a carpenter.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Give me any citation that anyone claims the universe created itself

And, you will see there is no answer to this yet
No answer that science can feel confident in and stop looking
Dogma stops the process of looking for anything
answers are given to you

SJ you are lining up the wrong person.
I was simply quoting LinusThe2nd.

My attempt was to make sense of that statement if it were widely claimed as Linus was suggesting.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I am wondering what is threatening your belief system so much to have to think that science has a declaritive stand on this.

I don’t think science does, it is a certain clique of science popularizers who tour the Colleges and Universities, post on U-Tube ( etc. ), write books popularizing these strange ideas, an so on.

Maybe you are one that is most comfortable with “knowing” everything now.
Science has no room for you. Know what you are told to know. Move away and let us do the heavy lifting.

I think you fail to distinguish science from fantasy. I’m not stopping you or anyone else from doing science. But when you start doing metaphysics then you are in my field and I will engage.

Linus2nd

 

[yppop]

You are claiming that technology is not science.

Technology is not science; it is engineering, invention, and application of science.

Are you claiming technology is religion?

Of course not, where did that idea come from?

Yppop

 

[yppop]

Does Sir Arthur Eddington have a say on anything anymore than you or I do?

Ask yourself that.

I don’t think so; he’s been dead for nearly 70 years.

Yppop

 

[yppop]

You may have gone off at a tangent here, as I didn’t say computers couldn’t exist, I said chips couldn’t exist without quantum theory, since the properties of semiconductors would not be understood.

I don’t know how I went off tangent because I understood you when you wrote, “the chips in your computer and mobile phone couldn’t have been designed or made to work without it”, that you were specifically referring to the chip and not the computer or the mobile phone.

In my response when I wrote “semiconductor devices” I was implying “chips”. I have a BS in Physics and an MS in Solid State Physics and I worked in the semiconductor industry for 34 years in an engineering environment. I know both the theory and the technology (as it was 20 years ago when I retired). So, in my response, when I wrote " …but it [was] had nothing to do with the design of such devices and it certainly did not have much to do with “making it work”, I meant: “quantum mechanics” had nothing to do with the design of such devices (chips) and had little to do with “making it work”, which I interpreted to mean “manufacture”.

I then addressed the “design” and the “making it work” parts of your statement as they referred to the “chips” in the computer and the mobile phone in two subsequent paragraphs. I stand by my views in both of those paragraphs.

If there is a misunderstanding because of my use of “semiconductor device” instead of chip, I apologize for using the jargon of the industry. I should have used “chip”.

More on this subject when I get around to answering Linus 2nd’s response.

There is a poster who argues that all science is entirely redundant in engineering as inventors get their ideas without ever learning any science and make the most complex devices by trail and error alone, but that seems a bit wishful.

As for the poster who “argues that all science is entirely redundant in engineering as inventors get their ideas without ever learning any science and make the most complex devices by trial and error alone…” He is wrong if he meant “all” , but is partly correct because there is an inordinate number of inventions that preceded or were invented without knowledge of the theory that explained them. For example: the steam engine, point contact transistor, the mosfet transistor, liquid crystals, optical lenses; bridges, airplanes, AC current, and others

Though it’s always good to meet someone who knows about Turing machines and Boolean algebra, we are a band of brothers.

If you are familiar with Boole and Turing then I believe you will agree when I contend that philosophy (logic) was more important to the design of the computer than QM.

And just to add one more little defense for philosophy; most of the most famous physicists never stopped philosophizing. That is what the discussions about determinism vs.probability and the Copenhagen Interpretation vs. Many World Interpretation of the Schrodinger Cat experiment is all about. Philosophy is never dead.

I love science; I love philosophy; I love technology; I love mathematics; I love Art; I love history; but most of all I love God.

Yppop

 

[Linux]

Technology is not science; it is engineering, invention, and application of science.

Dam!!! I would hate to be Strawberry Jam right now! :blackeye:

 

[yppop]

Innocent’s statement was that all this depended on quantum mechanics. This is something I personally doubt, though I certainly couldn’t begin to prove it. Perhaps you could give give a one page explanation if this is true. You wouldn’t have to give all the math, just explain to us where it applies and why.
Linus2nd

Linus
Innocente’s statement, “…the chips in your computer and mobile phone couldn’t have been designed or made to work without it”, is not as pertinent for the computer as it is for the mobile phone. The design of an integrated circuit chip has nothing to do with quantum mechanics (QM); the heart of an integrated circuit (IC) consists of a complex arrangement of a vast number of simple “gates” that are all designed using Bollean algebra.

His statement about “couldn’t be made to work without it” is not as easily dismissed because there is some truth to his statement in that QM did open the door to the development (not the design) of the silicon transistor, the basic element of the IC.

Excluding those ideas like “quantum computing” that are highly speculative and as yet not “made to work”, I can think of only three applications of QM: the transistor, the laser, and some medical technologies like MRI. The first transistor “made to work” was a point contact resistor, for which the theory is still not understood, hence it was more of an invention than an application of QM. It was the first transistor put into production…

Soon after Bardeen and Brattain invented the point contact transistor, Schockley used the solution to the Schrodinger wave equation to develop a theory of bipolar junction transistors. Transistors evolved through the grown junction, the alloy, the diffused mesa, and finally the planar transistor. This advance in transistor technology proceeded without QM (name removed by moderator)ut; it was mostly technology with an occasional (name removed by moderator)ut from other scientific fields like solid state diffusion for establishing junctions; metallurgy for purification of silicon, metallization of contacts and wire bonding; chemistry for cleaning and etching of patterns; circuit theory for testing; organic chemistry for the photo sensitive coatings used on the photolithography; etc. All were essential to making transistors work. None of these technologies depended on QM.

QM opened the door that **allowed **the chip to be designed and “made to work”. However without the flood of technology that provided the means for manufacturing chips in large quantities, you (meaning the average guy) would not have a computer or a mobile phone; which is also true if the transistor had not morphed into the integrated circuit.

The design of the IC is based on Boolean algebra and electrical circuit theory. What made IC’s work were several “technological” advances such as: passivation of silicon surfaces, multiple layers of metallization, large diameter silicon wafers, super clean manufacturing environments and defect density control, development of smaller line widths (integration); computer controlled testing; and wafer stepper lithography. etc. Again these are QM free technologies.

However I am not about to dismiss QM completely, because the laser, a QM invention, has made it possible to increase integration to allow the manufacture of smart phones. When I left the industry 19 years ago, the state of the art of producing line widths, the minimum useable feature, was 250 nanometers. The ability to manufacture such tiny features was limited by the wave length of the ultraviolet (uv) light that was used for photolithography and the capability of the optics to resolve the resulting line width on the surface of the silicon wafer. The 250 nm was the limit for the uv light supplied by mercury vapor lamp and there was talk about going to x-ray wave lengths to produce smaller line widths. It was possible to make personnel computers with the 250nm technology, but I don’t believe it was possible to produce the kind of smart phones now available. Fortunately, it was found that smaller wave lengths of light in the uv range were available using Excimer lasers that translated in a reduction of line width features to lower than 45 nanometers obviated the need for x-ray lithography.

QM was used in the basic design of the junction transistor, but not the MOS transistor, the element with which integrated circuits are made. The MOS transistor was invented, the theory came later.

I have little doubt that the MOS transistor would eventually be discovered without QM theory, but it would have been discovered in one of the research laboratories associated with the great Semiconductor Companies much later in our history than it was. Once the MOS transistor was invented, the integrated circuit and all that it led to would have followed.

I hope this was something close to what you were looking for. If not I am willing to share my experience to answer any specific question you might have.

Yppop