Jump to content


Photo

Quantum Mechanics


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
137 replies to this topic

#21 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 06 February 2009 - 12:56 PM

I've looked at the standard junk they trot out, and it's just nasty. But after ferreting out hidden assumptions in evolutionism for a while, it's not even a game with this stuff. The very first sentence is an in-your-face assumption, big as day. Guess the strategy is to blow it past you quickly before they think you're paying attention - shoot, who knows?

It's just too easy to see how OBVIOUSLY quantum philosophy is antiscientific.

View Post

This is a well laid out thought and I've been pondering the implications of either having or not having a well tuned BS detector. Many people who have been buffaloed by a bad philosophy rely on the volumes of explanations verses examining the contradictions and problems. It's almost like glaring contradictions and inconsistencies somehow magically disappear in the murky ambiguous details (that's sounds like an oxymoron but I can't find a better way to describe volumes of drivel, like TalkOrigins).

No one ever made more plain and concise statements about reality than Jesus, and only He has hit the nail on the head consistently and infallibly every time. I wonder why?

#22 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 06 February 2009 - 01:44 PM

http://www.commonsensescience.org/atomism.html

View Post

Interesting stuff. I particularly like this quote.

Although Democritus originally taught that the natural motion of atoms is straight downward, Epicurus reasoned that sometimes, by chance, atoms might deviate from their normal path. Such a deviation was "without the intervention of any outside force or guiding intelligence". This so-called "stroke of genius" by Epicurus was supposed to account for the observed variety of chemical compounds, animal life, and even "free-will" decisions of man through the laws of chance.

Satan really has a limited bag of tricks since he can't make anything new, he has to keep repackaging the same old lies.

I looked to see what kind of info AiG had and here is what I found:

http://www.answersin...1/weird-physics

Their take seems to be a little more friendly to the general approaches of Quantum Mechanics. Are we to dismiss the whole ball of research or should we focus on a couple of illogical concepts?

Here is another one with a quote:

http://www.answersin...i1/universe.asp

Denial of cause and effect

Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics violates this cause/effect principle and can produce something from nothing. For instance, Paul Davies writes:

    … spacetime could appear out of nothingness as a result of a quantum transition. … Particles can appear out of nowhere without specific causation … Yet the world of quantum mechanics routinely produces something out of nothing.9

But this is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing. Davies himself admitted on the previous page that his scenario ‘should not be taken too seriously.’

Theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate—their ‘quantum vacuum’ is a lot of matter-antimatter potential—not ‘nothing’. Also, I have plenty of theoretical and practical experience at quantum mechanics (QM) from my doctoral thesis work. For example, Raman spectroscopy is a QM phenomenon, but from the wavenumber and intensity of the spectral bands, we can work out the masses of the atoms and force constants of the bonds causing the bands. To help the atheist position that the universe came into existence without a cause, one would need to find Raman bands appearing without being caused by transitions in vibrational quantum states, or alpha particles appearing without pre-existing nuclei, etc. If QM was as acausal as some people think, then we should not assume that these phenomena have a cause. Then I may as well burn my Ph.D. thesis, and all the spectroscopy journals should quit, as should any nuclear physics research.

Also, if there is no cause, there is no explanation why this particular universe appeared at a particular time, nor why it was a universe and not, say, a banana or cat which appeared. This universe can’t have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it wouldn’t have any properties until it actually came into existence.


I just picked up the latest issue of 'Astronomy' magazine and it has a cover story talking about how spacecraft aren't following predicted paths and both Newton's theory and Einstein's theory may need chucked... interesting. :o

I'm starting to be of the mind set that when good ideas and good results are realized that sometimes (maybe even often) concepts get piggybacked unwittingly as the key even if they are totally wrong. These ideas remind me of the pork we find in bills that go through congress.

Adam

#23 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 06 February 2009 - 02:05 PM

A trustworthy, level-headed source has informed me that there have been a couple of legit discoveries in the field known as "quantum physics". I ain't about to deal with all that chaff without some motivation, myself.

I figure if you have that much money, and state-of-the-art gadgetry, you're bound to discover something just playing around with it for years. But I wouldn't expect the explanations of the phenomena they stumble onto to be worth a plug nickel.

"Garbage in - garbage out" they say. And with so many bogus assumptions, they'd need serious help from the evogoddess of luck to get anything right.

#24 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 06 February 2009 - 02:15 PM

Also, most creationists don't make the connections too quickly from evolutionism to quantum philosophy and Einsteinian relativity. Einstein was a major player in the establishment of you-can't-knowism. I suppose I'll need to start a thread on his bunk as well.

There was also a common friend shared by Darwin & Einstein. I wish my memory was better. That'll be a chore to google after, if I didn't take notes somewhere.

#25 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 06 February 2009 - 02:27 PM

Somebody stop me!

The beloved uncertainty assumption implies a promise NOT to pursue learning about particles too far.

Although it may not require it dogmatically, quantum philosophy enthusiastically encourages a belief in the ancient superstition of infinite regression of smaller and smaller particles. Now then! It may turn out that one of these smaller particles could be used instead of photons to observe Heisenberg's imaginary electron. It might turn out that such an imaginary particle wouldn't alter the course or speed of the electron appreciably.

But one would be duty bound NOT to discover such a particle, lest another come along and discover the application and blow the whole field of antiscience to bits.

I really do need to get this junk out of my head for a while...

View Post


It's not a particle it's a wave.

#26 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 06 February 2009 - 02:59 PM

Einstein was a major player in the establishment of you-can't-knowism.

View Post


What? He absolutely was not. Einstein believed so much in a clock work universe that he fought QM tooth and nail even though his work in the photoelectric effect largely played a part in the foundations of QM theory. I have already mentioned this in previous posts. This is the famous EPR Paradox vs. Bell's inequality.

#27 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 06 February 2009 - 03:33 PM

What?  He absolutely was not.  Einstein believed so much in a clock work universe that he fought QM tooth and nail even though his work in the photoelectric effect largely played a part in the foundations of QM theory.  I have already mentioned this in previous posts.  This is the famous EPR Paradox vs. Bell's inequality.

View Post

Everyone has limits. But who got the ball rolling by assuming parallel lines couldn't exist? Who said things couldn't take place simultaneously because you couldn't know they took place simultaneously?

#28 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 06 February 2009 - 03:48 PM

What?  He absolutely was not.  Einstein believed so much in a clock work universe that he fought QM tooth and nail even though his work in the photoelectric effect largely played a part in the foundations of QM theory.  I have already mentioned this in previous posts.  This is the famous EPR Paradox vs. Bell's inequality.

View Post

I'm starting to discover how important the philosophy of science is to the experimentation of science. As a draftsman I have watched people generate interesting concepts from repeatable observations which weren't conclusive simply based on the accurate observation.

This is the arena that I feel most drawn to. There are fields of research that seem very esoteric and just like religions that carry esoteric ideas, untouchable ideas, from which all other aspects of reality derive meaning, equally we should hold certain science doctrine in light of equal skepticism.

I'm not saying that we have the capacity to understand everything but we should ask if we are receiving the clearest picture with which to understand or discern or are we receiving a wild goose chase to be led away from a viable alternative that may carry unwanted metaphysical consequences. This contempt was once held by Darwinists against the Church and the pendulum has swung back and the tables have turned.

The current state of science holds a simultaneous contempt and reverence for the order of the Universe, not based on evidence but based on philosophy. The contempt shines brightest in the philosophies which seek to destroy the notion that God's handy work is detectable and therefore observable and reverence by necessity because assumptions of order are needed to achieve those feats of technology that we have come to expect and rely upon.

We live in a mixed up culture. I just got the latest National Geographic. It is primarily about Evolution. It's interesting it has strategically not printed any substantive articles over the current controversy. It has a victorious hew that all science is submissive to Darwin and successful because of Darwin. :o

I would exhort anyone who thinks and thinks deeply to question if they have any vein philosophies.

#29 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 09 February 2009 - 11:25 AM

This is an excellent short article the pertains to this thread:

http://www.answersin...s-atheism-again

The laws of logic and observation may need this clarity for this thread to be fruitful and this article does a good job revealing what may often be a stumbling block in our discourse over truth.

Adam

#30 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 09 February 2009 - 01:09 PM

This is an excellent short article the pertains to this thread:

http://www.answersin...s-atheism-again

The laws of logic and observation may need this clarity for this thread to be fruitful and this article does a good job revealing what may often be a stumbling block in our discourse over truth.

Adam

View Post


That article doesn't really add anything to the discussion on quantum mechanics though. No one is suggesting that it violates the law of non-contradiction.

#31 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 09 February 2009 - 01:22 PM

That article doesn't really add anything to the discussion on quantum mechanics though.  No one is suggesting that it violates the law of non-contradiction.

View Post

I would agree that the study of quantum mechanics must ultimately follow logic but there are some relativistic philosophies being snuck in the back door and it's obvious when quantum mechanics is sited as the arena that supposedly defies logic...

#32 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 09 February 2009 - 02:04 PM

I would agree that the study of quantum mechanics must ultimately follow logic but there are some relativistic philosophies being snuck in the back door and it's obvious when quantum mechanics is sited as the arena that supposedly defies logic...

View Post


What do you mean when you think that there are some relativistic philosophies being snuck in the back door? Are you talking about the interpretation of some of the results?

You say that it must follow logic and then in the same breath say that it defies logic. There's a violation of the law of non contradiction right there! <_<

#33 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 09 February 2009 - 02:14 PM

What do you mean when you think that there are some relativistic philosophies being snuck in the back door?  Are you talking about the interpretation of some of the results?

You say that it must follow logic and then in the same breath say that it defies logic.  There's a violation of the law of non contradiction right there! <_<

View Post


I said supposedly defies logic. The concept of being certain that something is unknowable is a vein philosophy.

#34 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 09 February 2009 - 02:42 PM

I said supposedly defies logic. The concept of being certain that something is unknowable is a vein philosophy.

View Post


It's not unknowable. It's something you can learn about for yourself.

#35 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 09 February 2009 - 03:10 PM

For my part, I think it's clear that quantum philosophy is contrary to logic, and irreconcilably so. They can't even follow their own rules - they're so screwed up.

Not all lies are equally fun to debunk. I can't explain why. Perhaps fun, like quantum philosophy, isn't perfectly logical. I would still bet fun comes closer, if anyone ever tallies it up.

#36 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 09 February 2009 - 03:43 PM

For my part, I think it's clear that quantum philosophy is contrary to logic, and irreconcilably so. They can't even follow their own rules - they're so screwed up.

Not all lies are equally fun to debunk. I can't explain why. Perhaps fun, like quantum philosophy, isn't perfectly logical. I would still bet fun comes closer, if anyone ever tallies it up.

View Post


When a black body radiates energy away, it does it in discrete energy packets (or quanta). This is experimentally verifiable. It's observed so often in experiment that questioning it would be analogous to questioning the blueness of the sky, or the wetness of water.

It's observed in everything from the photoelectric effect to pair production.

#37 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 09 February 2009 - 03:54 PM

When a black body radiates energy away, it does it in discrete energy packets (or quanta).  This is experimentally verifiable.  It's observed so often in experiment that questioning it would be analogous to questioning the blueness of the sky, or the wetness of water.

It's observed in everything from the photoelectric effect to pair production.

View Post

I understand no instrument exists which has the capacity to detect less than one "quanta". If I am mistaken, I should like to be corrected.

If I am not mistaken, the "quanta" is bogus. It is just like saying a car cannot move slower than the lowest speed it's speedometer will register, which is exactly the kind of thing quantum philosophers are always saying.

#38 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 09 February 2009 - 05:26 PM

I understand no instrument exists which has the capacity to detect less than one "quanta". If I am mistaken, I should like to be corrected.

If I am not mistaken, the "quanta" is bogus. It is just like saying a car cannot move slower than the lowest speed it's speedometer will register, which is exactly the kind of thing quantum philosophers are always saying.

View Post


So what's your better explanation then?

#39 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 09 February 2009 - 06:45 PM

So what's your better explanation then?

View Post

The first priority would be to try to develop a way to detect smaller amounts. It is nothing but antiscience to desire ignorance.

I think a series of lenses could be used to disperse light into smaller amounts, but I'm not sure how one would go about detecting them. That part, at least, should be fairly inexpensive. Lenses are cheap.

#40 Master Buffalax

Master Buffalax

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Albuquerque, New Mexico

Posted 09 February 2009 - 09:32 PM

The first priority would be to try to develop a way to detect smaller amounts. It is nothing but antiscience to desire ignorance.

I think a series of lenses could be used to disperse light into smaller amounts, but I'm not sure how one would go about detecting them. That part, at least, should be fairly inexpensive. Lenses are cheap.

View Post

You seem to be under the impression that our evidence for quanta is just that our instruments can't detect anything less than a certain amount. This is incorrect. Let me outline two experiments that give much better reasons for believing in quanta:

1. The Photoelectric Effect
It has long been known that shining light on a sheet of metal will eject electrons. The energy from the light excites the electrons so that they can escape from their orbitals and go flying off into some detector. What happens if light it continuous (not quantized) as you seem to believe? A beam of light has two components: frequency (which manifests as color) and intensity (which manifests as brightness). An increase in either component leads to an increase in overall energy flux, so you might expect that as one cranks up frequency and/or intensity, the rate of electron ejection should also increase. The more energy being supplied, the more quickly a given electron can soak up enough energy to escape, right?

Wrong. While an increase in intensity does lead to a roughly linear increase in electron ejection, frequency does something far stranger. Most of the time, adjusting frequency up and down has no effect on the rate of electron ejection. When frequency drops below some well-defined value, though, the photoelectric effect stops altogether. No matter how bright your light is and how long you shine it on a sheet of metal, the metal will not eject a single electron if the frequency is below a certain threshold. From a non-quantized view of light, this makes no sense. Quantum mechanics, though, readily explain it: each photon has a frequency which is proportional to its energy, and the intensity of light just describes how many photons are zipping by per unit time. Changing the intensity changes the number of electrons ejected per unit time, since more photons means more chances for any given electron to absorb a photon and escape. Frequency obeys a more off/on relation, since any given photon either will or won't have enough energy to eject an electron that absorbs it. (At higher frequencies, the electrons are ejected at higher speeds, which lends credence to the idea that they're being knocked out of the metal by higher energy photons.)

2.The Double-Slit
If you've done any reading at all on the experimental basis for quantum mechanics, you've probably seen the double-slit experiment. You shine light through two slits onto photosensitive film, and instead of forming two lines on the film, the light forms a whole series of vertical bars. This occurs because the light from one slit interferes with light from the other slit and produces a more complex "interference pattern" on the other side.

Of course, this doesn't show that light is quantized. The interesting part occurs when you turn the intensity of the beam way, way down. If light were not quantized, you would probably expect the film to develop very slowly, but evenly; the continuous light being beamed through the slits would slowly but surely produce an image that didn't change from start to end of development. This isn't what happens. Instead, tiny dots appear abruptly and at random all over the film. These dots keep appearing and adding up until eventually there are so many dots that they blur together, producing the image of a series of bars. As you turn down the intensity, these dots appear more and more slowly, but they don't diminish in brightness. This indicates that little quanta of light are hitting the film one at a time, as opposed to a homogeneous "bath" of light washing over the whole film at once and gradually creating the picture.

If this is still unconvincing, note that you can do the same thing with electrons. Chemists have known for a very long time that electrons are quantized; you hear about 1+, 2+, 1-, etc. ions, but you never hear about fractional ionizations. If particles are indeed different from waves, electrons should just fly through the two slits and produce two bars on the film. However, when the experiment is actually performed, the electrons produce a series of bars, just like the photons did. Even if the electron beam is slowed to the point that only one electron is going through the slits, the film eventually develops to a series-of-bars image. There is no purely particle-based explanation for this; the electrons must be in some sense wavelike because they are interfering with themselves to produce this pattern. Both the photon and electron versions of the experiment demonstrate simultaneous wave and particle aspects of a single thing, so both demonstrate the core idea of quantum mechanics.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users