God and the uncertainty principle

[sony]

First of all: I'm sorry if this question has been asked before. I tried a search, but couldn't find anything.

So, the uncertainty principle prohibites anyone from knowing the exact location and velocity of a particle... If there was a God, wouldn't he/she have to know the exact location and velocity of every particle in the entire universe?

If he/she were to make something happened in a distant galaxy, let's say make a person "see a sign from God in his/her head/imagination/dream". If God were supposed to do this, he would have to rearrange a series of particles resulting in the person's brain depicting what he wants it to depict. But according to Heisenberg, shouldn't this be impossible?

So, can the uncertainty principle outrule a "controlling" God?

Im sure there's a lot more to this question, and I'm faaaar from any expert...

Cheers

 

[Problem+Solve=Reason]

First of all: I'm sorry if this question has been asked before. I tried a search, but couldn't find anything.

So, the uncertainty principle prohibites anyone from knowing the exact location and velocity of a particle... If there was a God, wouldn't he/she have to know the exact location and velocity of every particle in the entire universe?

If he/she were to make something happened in a distant galaxy, let's say make a person "see a sign from God in his/her head/imagination/dream". If God were supposed to do this, he would have to rearrange a series of particles resulting in the person's brain depicting what he wants it to depict. But according to Heisenberg, shouldn't this be impossible?

So, can the uncertainty principle outrule a "controlling" God?

Im sure there's a lot more to this question, and I'm faaaar from any expert...

Cheers

If you truly have faith in God, you should understand that neither the simple thoughts of your limited mind, nor the mind of Heisenberg may reveal the secrets of God.
*I don't mean to get religious at all with this comment, and the admins shouldn't hesitate to delete if they see fit.*

----- nwO ruoY evaH ,deeN oN <----?eeS I tahW eeS uoY oD

 

[derekmohammed]

People once thought that angels held up the universe, then thought progressed that Earth was the centre of the universe. Now we finally understand that we are just a small, almost insignificant part of the universe.

As humans progess our thought progress's as well; I am sure that five hundred years from now the uncertainty principal will be eliminated and the problem of momentum and position will seem insignificant.
You must remember; that to say something is completely right is just as wrong as saying something is completely wrong. Therefore you can not base your thoughts about a "devine God" on our primitive knowledge of the nature of the universe.

 

[loseyourname]

The uncertainty principle states that we cannot measure certain quantities in concert, not that it is impossible to simply know the value of these quantities. Presumably, if there is a God, he is not postulated to measure or calculate physical quantities, he just knows them. There is no need for him to acquire this knowledge in the same way that a human acquires knowledge.

At least that's the impression that I get. I'm not religious myself.

 

[derekmohammed]

The Uncertaincy princpal states that it is impossible to know the values of both momentum and position at any given time, since to view an object you must eject some sort if energy into into it, therefore allowing the electrons to leave there ground state. Also since it is currently impossible to have something travel faster then the speed of light, it is impossible to know both momentum and positon at the same time.

If there was a God and he was restriced to our laws there would be no possible way he could veiw something and know its momentum and position at the same time. But like I said humans once thought that angels held the moon in place...

 

[loseyourname]

Well, like I said, I'm pretty sure God isn't said to view anything. God doesn't even possesses a sensory system. He just knows.

 

[sony]

Thanks for the replies.

So, can anyone recommend any scientific books discussing God's role in modern physics?

I'm not religious btw.

Thanks

 

[selfAdjoint]

Thanks for the replies.

So, can anyone recommend any scientific books discussing God's role in modern physics?

I'm not religious btw.

Thanks

Max Jammer wrote a book called Einstein and Religion, which covers Einstein's religious development (so misunderstood by the public) but also discusses various attempts to square the idea of an omniscient god with the concepts of relativity. Starting with a naive identification of omniscience with four dimensional spacetime, this enterprise pretty much ran out in the dust. Truly "God was in (or not in) the details."

 

[loseyourname]

There is a book I remember seeing on a bookshelf called God in the Equation. From what I can tell, it was contending that Einstein was right when he included the cosmological constant in the TOR and that the cosmological constant is God. Don't take my word for it, though, because I did not read or even open up the book. I just read the back.

 

[Rybo]

God particle & secret formula

There is a book I remember seeing on a bookshelf called God in the Equation. From what I can tell, it was contending that Einstein was right when he included the cosmological constant in the TOR and that the cosmological constant is God. Don't take my word for it, though, because I did not read or even open up the book. I just read the back.

Also there is "Gods Particle" which pertains to the alledged Higgs boson give rise to mass of all fermionic matter particles of Universe.

Peter Plichtas "Gods Secret Formula" uses complex and trancendental numbers to arrive at his geometric "Prime Number Cross" and two kinds of space (1/0).

I would say the there is "only order" in the physical Universe an that the uncertainty principle does not neccessitate chaotic uncertainty of metaphysical mind i.e. not knowing some of the order of Universe because its being to micro or to macro in scope does not mean that we have to aquiess/succumb to any "superficial only" chaos of mind due to the lack of our understanding/comprehesnion of the order.

Of course that is easier said then done. :)

Rybo

 

[StatusX]

The uncertainty principle isn't just about measurement, it says that the particles don't have specific positions and velocities.

 

[Garth]

The uncertainty principle isn't just about measurement, it says that the particles don't have specific positions and velocities.

How do you know?

sony

So, can anyone recommend any scientific books discussing God's role in modern physics?

From a Christian (non-fundamentalist) perspective try "Beyond Science" by John Polkinghorne (Cambridge University Press 1996). J.P. was formely Professor of Theoretical Physics at Cambridge University.
From a non-Christian perspective try "God and the New Physics" (J M Dent 1983) or "The Mind of God" (Simon & Schuster 1992) both by Paul Davies, formely Professor of Theoretical Physics at Newcastle University now Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, The Australian Centre for Astrobiology, Macquarie University.


Garth

 

[Rybo]

whats really going on at the atomic and subatmic?

The uncertainty principle isn't just about measurement, it says that the particles don't have specific positions and velocities.

Stat, nobody really knows what all the details of what's going on at the atomic and sub-atomic levels.

Is it a particle? Is a wave? Is energy just motion? Whats moving? Whats vibrating? Is there something moving/vibrating beyond our accepted speed-of-radiation?

I think there are specfic positions, velocities and geometries as well as limits to what is feasible if not what is possible to ascertain about these aspects/attiorbutes of the quantum world/realm.

Rybo

 

[StatusX]

How do you know?

The idea that particles have definite positions and velocities before we measure them, and that measuring is merely "retrieving" these values is called "local realism." It is in conflict with the standard copenhagen interpretation of QM, and the Bell inequality was proposed as a way to distinguish these views experimentally. To date, the experiments have confirmed the standard interpretation of QM, that particles really don't have any definite physical values until we observe them.

 

[russ_watters]

Ie, if an electron had a specific position and velocity, regardless of if we could measure it, it wouldn't diffract or have interference - but it does.

For the initial question: God is God. He, if he exists, exists outside of science. He would not be confined by it.

 

[PerennialII]

I think you can apply the free will / deterministic universe works very much to this problem as well, and both can survive the existence of God.

 

[Rybo]

Is God a diffractionated wave pattern?

Ie, if an electron had a specific position and velocity, regardless of if we could measure it, it wouldn't diffract or have interference - but it does.
For the initial question: God is God. He, if he exists, exists outside of science. He would not be confined by it.

Russ, I am not aware of any experiments with a single electron, photon or any alledged particles that reult in a diffracted wave pattern on any osciliscope, photosensor screen or whatever etc...

Aparently many atomic and sub-atomic particles as well as any alledged God is outside of science(physics/physical) to some degree in that the diffractioned wave patterns of these particles and God appear as being metaphysical and instantaneous communications over large distances ergo beyond our udnerstanding and comprehension of our finite physical Universe. I dunno.

Rybo

 

[Problem+Solve=Reason]

Wait a second... Isn't God a power that effects this physical world. Why does the uncertainty princeple defeat the notion of God? As I see it, the challange to the faith in God would be a physical world which is totally predictable, for if that where true God's roll as a moderator would be defeated, and our choice to chose Good or Evil would be defeated as well.

----- nwO ruoY evaH ,deeN oN <----?eeS I tahW eeS uoY oD

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, I am not aware of any experiments with a single electron, photon or any alledged particles that reult in a diffracted wave pattern on any osciliscope, photosensor screen or whatever etc...

You don't need a single photon to prove the wave/particle duality and quantify the uncertainty principle, but since you asked, http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~scdiroff/lds/QuantumRelativity/SinglePhotonInterference/SinglePhotonInterference.html is the first link brought back by Google.

In this demonstration we perform the double-slit interference experiment with extremely dim light. Rather than the usual screen, the arrival of individual photons is registered and stored electronically. This alone is evidence for the graininess or particle nature of light. However, we take the experiment one step further and show that even when the light intensity is reduced down to several photons/sec, the audience can see the familiar Young's double-slit interference pattern build up over a period of time as the arrival and position of each photon is stored on an electronic screen. This addresses the question (and dilemma) of how can single photons interfere with photons that have already gone through the apparatus in the past, or with those that will go through in the future, or with themselves. Finally, the slit arrangement is such that it is possible to know which of the two slits the photons are passing through. In that case the Young's double-slit interference pattern does not manifest itself.

 

[Rybo]

I agree there is duality but we only observe particles(QED)

You don't need a single photon to prove the wave/particle duality and quantify the uncertainty principle, but since you asked, http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~scdiroff/lds/QuantumRelativity/SinglePhotonInterference/SinglePhotonInterference.html is the first link brought back by Google.

Russ, thanks for this link. I haven't read it all the way through nor am I sure I will be able to understand it enough to conlcude that they are using only one photon to produce a diffracted wave pattern.

1) You may have misunderstood mymeaning. I did not say nor did I mean to imply that that we "need" a single photon experiment, to prove the particle/wave duality. That duality has been proven via many of the same particle over time creating the diffracted pattern on an elctronic screen or some such detecting equipment.

Here again is the quote for the particle aspect of the single photon experiment.

---"In this demonstration we perform the double-slit interference experiment with extremely dim light. Rather than the usual screen, the arrival of individual photons is registered and stored electronically. This alone is evidence for the graininess or particle nature of light."----

Here they saying it is individual photons but still they are talking about an accumulation of many photons over time.

2) Also they state the following they they are not detecting single photons of light but photoelectrons(whatever that is):

---Comments: Single photon interference experiments are not new. 12 * Strictly speaking, we are not detecting single photons of light but rather single photoelectrons, liberated by the light impinging on the detector screen. Nevertheless, the quantum nature of light is evident. The positions of arrival (of the photons) are random but the probabilities of arriving at certain positions are not. This is beautifully born out in the demonstration.----

Im not and expert Russ but from most of what i read the diffracted(ineterference) wave pattern is still only accomplished with multiple photons or photoelectrons or electrons etc...

Finally what does "quantify the uncertainty principle" mean? To confirm its validity?

Again uncertainty is only one aspect/attribute not being observable simultaneously to the other and, not that there is not and unknown set of specific position or positions at any time. Maybe this is just totally wrong on my part. Idunno

Im very much an undeducated amateur layperson trying to be a theoretical physicist type from reading the laybooks and surfing the net.

God is the whole of physical and metphysical Universe for me. Humans have the unigue ability to conceptually place theirselve outside of a conceptually finite Universe and look back in and say they are God and hold the whole Universe in their conceptual hands.

In this sense God may represent the physical Universe and God{es}may respresent the metaphysical Universe, with the two being in eternal complementation to each other.

Geez, I may have strayed far from the topic of the orginal question. I dunno. :)



Rybo

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, thanks for this link. I haven't read it all the way through nor am I sure I will be able to understand it enough to conlcude that they are using only one photon to produce a diffracted wave pattern.

I didn't read the whole thing either Just read the part I quoted: the light is so dim and the detector so sensitive that individual photons are registered in a timescale observable by humans (this is a lab experiment). These individual photons get diffracted. There are other implications as well...

Here they saying it is individual photons but still they are talking about an accumulation of many photons over time...

Im not and expert Russ but from most of what i read the diffracted(ineterference) wave pattern is still only accomplished with multiple photons or photoelectrons or electrons etc...

Well, you can't have a "pattern" if you have only one point. Each photon will hit at a single location in the diffraction pattern, as dictated by probability. That's the key sentence in the quote. Similarly, you can't look at one pixel on your computer monitor and be able to read this message - but that doesn't change the fact that the individual pixels were placed individually in the pattern.

Also they state the following they they are not detecting single photons of light but photoelectrons(whatever that is):

That's the detector. Since a photon isn't an electron, you have to convert it to an electrical impulse to detect it (or a chemical reaction in the case of film).

Finally what does "quantify the uncertainty principle" mean? To confirm its validity?

No, confirm its value. Ie, Planck's constant. When we say that a photon (or electron) doesn't have a precise position or velocity Planck's constant allows us to calculate just how precise it can get. For a photon its redundant (we already know its wavelength), but for an electron diffraction experiment, it gives us the electron's wavelength, and thus the diffraction pattern.

 

[Rybo]

These individual photons get diffracted...Well, you can't have a "pattern" if you have only one point. Each photon will hit at a single location in the diffraction pattern, as dictated by probability... Since a photon isn't an electron, you have to convert it to an electrical impulse to detect it (or a chemical reaction in the case of film). No, confirm its value. Ie, Planck's constant. When we say that a photon (or electron) doesn't have a precise position or velocity Planck's constant allows us to calculate just how precise it can get. For a photon its redundant (we already know its wavelength), but for an electron diffraction experiment, it gives us the electron's wavelength, and thus the diffraction pattern.

Ok, If they say that individaul photons get diffracted then I can't dispute that and must stand corrected. Reluctanly tho. :)

As you say-- "you can't have a pattern with only one point"--has been my point all along. For all particle/wave dualitys. If your previous comments and quotes regarding "indiviudal photon diffraction" is correct then there seems to be some conflictory or I am just misunderstanding the information as stated and quoted. I dunno.

I do understand that we only indirectly detect photons with a change in the electrons orbital/shell-like energy values-- i.e. it is the fermionic matter sensor/detector of bosonic photons --. It is the word photoelectron that through me for a loop.

Sorry, Plancks(10^-32) constant and most mathematical formulas with constants go over my head.

Im aware of the EM frequency-to-wave length relationship and constant speed of photons, but I am not familiar with electron frequencies and wave lengths.

Russ if you could please tell me if electron frequencies contain as broad a range as electromegnetic spectrum of photons -- e.g. EMR goes from at least 6 kilometers plus to 10^-15 meters(cosmic photon/fermi's) --.

If not the same as EMR then what is the electron "electral range"?

Im also familiar with high energy beta particles(electrons) that move near the speed of EM-Radiation.

Thanks for any time and energy in this matters.

Rybo

 

[philocrazy]

sony:
God and the uncertainty principle



First of all: I'm sorry if this question has been asked before. I tried a search, but couldn't find anything.

So, the uncertainty principle prohibites anyone from knowing the exact location and velocity of a particle... If there was a God, wouldn't he/she have to know the exact location and velocity of every particle in the entire universe?

If he/she were to make something happened in a distant galaxy, let's say make a person "see a sign from God in his/her head/imagination/dream". If God were supposed to do this, he would have to rearrange a series of particles resulting in the person's brain depicting what he wants it to depict. But according to Heisenberg, shouldn't this be impossible?

So, can the uncertainty principle outrule a "controlling" God?

Im sure there's a lot more to this question, and I'm faaaar from any expert...

Cheers
----------------------------------------------------
Hi
uncertainty principle ,controling God
what God is that
first of all
the God of jesus and mohamet is the God of abraham
and obviously controls nothing
because the jewish and west fight the mohamet people
now are you serious,is there a God of abraham?
the only god i know is the comic Gods of Olymbus
and they control no particles
any other Gods who control something,tell me about it!
ill come up with an answear of their own devices
freedom controls America not America freedom!

 

[Garth]

There is a form of theology known as 'Process Theology' where God does not know the future and is in the process of working it out as we go along, just as we do.

Garth

 

[Rybo]

Life of the Cosmos

There is a form of theology known as 'Process Theology' where God does not know the future and is in the process of working it out as we go along, just as we do.
Garth

This almost exactly the same as Lee Smolins ideas in his book "Life Of the Cosmos", where the mtephysical cosmic laws and the physical Universe are in constant evolutionary process.

I don't buy this in that I think a true cosmic law is eternal ergo inviolate.

This means there is limited evolutionary possibilities.

This means there that complex-to-simple(de-evolutionary) rules over simple-to-complex(evolutionary).

Rybo

Rybo