|
|
 |
Quantum, Quantum,
Wherefore Art Thou, Quantum?
(Top Posts - Science - 032501)
First
off, thanks to "A Brief History of Science",
by John Gribbin, for most of the information referred
to in this post.
http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/ISBNinquiry.asp?
isbn=0760710651
- - - - - - -
The world of the Very Very Very Very Very Tiny:
Quantum Physics refers to the theoretical world of the sub-
atomic and atomic realm.
How big a world is that?
Well, the largest atom is 0.0000005 mm across
(that's 5/10,000,000ths or 1/2,000,000ths of a mm across).
Put another way, 2 million of the largest atom would fit into a
millimeter.
Put another way, since an inch is 25.4 times larger than a milli-
meter, 50.8 million of the largest atom would fit into an inch.
So, we're talking a Very Very Very Very Very Tiny world here.
When it comes to anything quantum, any mention of quantum,
be it quantum physics or quantum theory, or quantum mechan-
ics, keep in mind you're talking about a Very Very Very Very
Very Tiny world, beyond which quantum theory does not apply
(not directly, anyway).
- - - - - - -
Free Will and the quantum world?
Excerpt from page 77 of "A Brief History of Science" ...
"Choreographers may not always like it, but individual human
beings have free will. We are free to make mistakes, or to follow
our own whims about what to wear. Some physicists believe that
free will can be traced back to the uncertainty built into the laws
of quantum mechanics."
This statement is accompanied by a drawing of 11 dancers,
10 with blonde hair, 1 with red hair, 10 not wearing glasses,
1 wearing glasses, 10 smiling, 1 smirking, 11 with a red outfit,
10 with red slippers, 1 with rather odd-looking blue shoes.
Another comment on the page refers to Heisenberg's uncertainty
principle in the following manner:
"Unfortunately many textbooks, even at university level, say
that the uncertainty is a result of our human limitations, and
the fact that our experiments cannot make measurements that
are sufficiently precise. This is not true! Uncertainty is a real
feature of the quantum world, and this is what makes the
quantum world run in accordance with the rules of probability."
My comments:
1) The statement that "some physicists believe...." leads one to
conclude that some physicists don't believe that free will can be
traced back to the uncertainty built into the laws of quantum
mechanics. I have yet to find anything that connects the world
of the Very Very Very Very Very Tiny (1/50.8 millionths of
an inch) to a free will philosophy in the macro world.
Any relation of the quantum world to anything of a philosophical
or theological nature outside of the quantum world is purely
conjecture free of evidence and will, in all likelihood, never be
proven (IMO).
2) The effort to connect the free will of humans to the uncertainty
in the world of the Very Very Very Very Very Tiny is flawed at
best and is not based on science but, instead, is based on the
desire of humans to perceive that they have free will (IMO).
From an old Newsweek article on scientists believing in a "per-
sonal God" (by Sharon Begley):
"... For Billy Crockett, president of Walking Angel Records
in Dallas, the discoveries of quantum mechanics that he reads
about in the paper reinforce his faith that 'there is a lot of mys-
tery in the nature of things.' For other believers, an appreciation
of science deepens faith. 'Science produces in me a tremendous
awe,' says Sister Mary White of the Benedictine Meditation
Center in St. Paul, Minn. 'Science and spirituality have a com-
mon quest, which is a quest for truth.' ..."
So, one must ask, why is "Quantum whatever" being used in
theoretical science in conjunction with the big bang, by some
Christians and some scientists to explain free will, by some
Christians to reinforce religious faith? Is "Quantum whatever"
whatever you want it to be or is it simply a basic building block
of matter, with its own rules separate from anything and every-
thing beyond its Very Very Very Very Very Tiny realm?
I suspect the latter is true.
- - - - - - -
Origins of Quantum Mechanics: From an article at
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/quantum/inthebeginning.jsp
"ONCE upon a time, Newton prevailed, and the world was a safe
place for all of us. When you hit a plain, old-fashioned billiard ball,
you could predict how fast it would move and in what direction.
And when the billiard ball came to rest, you knew exactly where
it was. These simple notions seemed obvious, necessary even.
Most people believed that for physics to work, it had to be based
on such solid and unshakable foundations.
Then on 19 October 1900, physicist Max Planck made a ground-
breaking presentation to the German Physical Society. Planck
was a sober man and, at 42, a little long in the tooth for a revolu-
tionary. But his discovery was to turn the classical physics of the
billiard ball on its head."
Well, one of the reasons I posted this excerpt was that I was born
55 years to the day after Max Planck's ground-breaking presenta-
tion to the German Physical Society. Just a coincidence but in this
odd world of "Quantum whatever", I certainly got a kick out of that
fact.
Also of note, the physics of a billiard ball are in no way impacted
by "Quantum whatever" (just for the record).
- - - - - - -
And It Gets Even Tinier: From "A Brief History of Science", page
81, "... atoms are mostly empty space, with the mass concen-
trated in a tiny central nucleus."
From "A Brief History of Science", page 84, "... theorists are now
developing models that describe the entities we used to think of
as particles in terms of tiny loops of vibrating material, prosaic-
ally dubbed 'string'. These loops would be incredibly tiny. It would
take a hundred billion billion of them to stretch across a single
proton, so there is no hope of probing them directly by experi-
ments."
- - - - - - -
Albert Einstein's comments: From an article (Is QM a Complete
Theory) at http://www.mtnmath.com/faq/meas-qm-5.html
:
"Einstein did not believe that God plays dice and thought a more
complete theory would predict the actual outcome of experiments.
He argued that quantities that are conserved absolutely (such as
momentum or energy) must correspond to some objective element
of physical reality. Because QM does not model this he felt it must
be incomplete. It is possible that events are the result of objective
physical processes that we do not yet understand. ..."
- - - - - - -
Quantum Theory or Quantum Fact? : From an article at
http://www.mtnmath.com/faq/meas-qm-14.html
:
"There is a certain Alice in Wonderland quality to arguments on
these issues. Many physicists claim that classical mathematics
does not apply to some aspects of quantum mechanics, yet there
is no other mathematics. The wave function model is a classical
causal deterministic model. The computation of probabilities from
that model is as well. The aspect of quantum mechanics that one
can claim lies outside of classical mathematics is the interpreta-
tion of those probabilities. ..."
- - - - - - -
Conclusion:
Whenever you read about "Quantum whatever", keep in mind
you're talking about the world of the Very Very Very Very Very
Tiny, a world with its own rules apart from those generally recog-
nized in the macro world.
You're talking about a world which cannot be measured in a stan-
dard way because any standard measurement method directly
impacts that world (i.e., the world of atoms cannot be measured
directly as any direct atomic measurement causes atoms to re-
spond to the method used to measure them; the only thing that
can be measured in the atomic world is the movement of parti-
cles; the direct state of any particle cannot be measured at any
point in time).
Whenever you read something of a philosophical or theological
nature trying to relate a "Quantum whatever" with the macro
world, take it with a Very Very Very Very Very Tiny quantum
portion of a grain of salt, for whatever that's worth.
- - - - - - -
|
|
