Posted on 11/17/2003 6:02:20 AM PST by Tribune7
I think we are on the verge of a scientific revolution of at least the magnitude of Einstein’s Relativity Theory, as ideas regarding the quantum nature of the Universe sink in.
Modern quantum theory began in 1924, and most of its important consequences had been realized within the subsequent 30 years. The quantum millenium you're hoping for is very, very late in arriving. Quantum theory, on the other hand, predicts that there is no such thing as a discrete object – be it a sub-atomic particle, or a biological organism – and that space is not “empty.
This is gross exaggeration to the point of misrepresentation. Quantum mechanics in fully compatible with the existence of discrete objects. After all, we have an entire division of physics called 'Atomic and Molecular Physics', which would be a bit stupid if we didn't have discrete atoms or molecules, wouldn't it? And there is absolutely no doubt that we can confine some discrete number of atoms in a trap for days, weeks, or the longevity of the trap, and then return and find the same number of atoms.
It has been suggested that any quantum particle, once in contact with another particle of its type, retains that connection even when separated, even if the two particles are thereafter removed to “locations” at opposite “ends” of the universe. The idea is, no matter how far apart they are separated, the action of one will always influence the action of the other, simultaneously,
It may have been suggested, but it's wrong. If you have two entangled particles, the entanglement will disappear on the time scale of the relaxation of the quantum state. I'd be surprised if there were an experimental example of coherence of separated particles that lasted more than a few seconds. The examples I'm aware of, in my own field of NMR, last about that long.
How can it be that two widely separated quantum particles can “entangle” each other whenever an “observation” is made, such that the energy state of one of them, when known, simultaneously specifies the energy state of the other, where the two particles do not directly come into contact with each other? The answer quantum theory gives is the particles exist in a universal field which mediates or facilitates the interactions of particles in the field, as well as interaction of those particles with the particles of other fields. Each type of particle has its own particular field. All particles in a field are identical to each other: Apparently they derive their particular properties (mass, charge, spin, etc., etc.) from the “instruction set” which is the field itself.
All of this is news to me. Can you cite some reputable textbook that details it?
One other comment, for the lurkers. None of this is standard physics. It's some very wild speculations, by people not at all well known in the general physics community. Darwinian evolution is certainly not in trouble because of the speculative ideas of a small number of obscurantist quantum theorists, that the vast majority of physicists don't accept.
If an atheist concludes that he can never figure out the purpose of of his existence, he is shallow.
If an atheist concludes that his existence has a purpose, he is basing it on a "faith" in things that he can't measure. This, of course, means that any declaration that, that which can't be measure is ignorable, is irrational.
Suppose his existence actually has no 'purpose'. Surely he is then correct, and you misguided? After all, you can't give him any evidence of such a purpose; it would seem to me that he is merely being sensibly skeptical.
Your post appears to rely heavily on your authority. As counterpoint, Richard Feynman:
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself -- and you are the easiest person to fool.
I think that I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.
Which is why I asked for a cite from a reputable textbook?
I do, at full face value. I'm not alone.
Our we applying this condition to an individual atheist or atheists in general?
If so, is the point that there is no purpose to atheists?
Or is the point that there is no purpose to people in general?
What we end up with is a faith that there is no God and no purpose to their existence.
Fortunately, you are wrong. Unfortunately many people hold this faith.
No. My declaration was that that (some) atheist believes that what can't be measured is ignorable.
My belief is that what can't be meausred is the most important.
Let me guess: You were reading a book by Berlinski and just came up for air. :-)To think that the concepts of Darwinian Evolution, Newtonian Physics, Relativity, et aliae doxae a priori ad infinitum, should share the grail of a universal commons. Kant, like the proverbial moth to a flame, dared approach it and--we must admit now with our wiser wisdom--he did so with the ignorance of an insect driven by forces and motors. He infused his approach with stolen goods disguised by transformation of his signature wing: transcendence. After Kant, everything was Nature dancing with a divinized Ego. With transcendence immanentized, Pope's dictum became the law, "presume not God to scan" and in obedience they are happy to no longer have to study man.
When you've gotten tired of pretending you're stupid, get back to me again.
I do, at full face value. I'm not alone.
The you have a problem; because if he truly thought he did not understand quantum mechanics, yet wrote books explaining quantum mechanics, he was a charlatan. And you are then taking the words of a charlatan at face value.
What exactly did you mean by "suppose his existence actually has no 'purpose'. Surely he is then correct . ."
Take it through to its conclusion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.