Jump to content


Photo

Quantum Mechanics


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

#41 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 09 February 2009 - 11:08 PM

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.

View Post


Uh huh, and how does this prove disorder? You see, even this has order to it. To complete each experiment you must go through some type of order ( the experiment shows this). You do understand that, I'm sure. So the question is... How is it NOT ordered?

Does it just surpass human understanding, or do you just accept that somehow you do not understand it, therefore it must have absolutely no order. But by all means it must have some order, because if it didn't, then you could not get any type of results from an experiment. You see, everything in this universe requires order, and you have single handedly proved that it does, because you sure haven't even come close to proving that Quantam Mechanics has no order.

Mechanics has order. What, How, When, and Where does this prove that no order exist within this?

#42 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 10 February 2009 - 09:13 AM

Now Scott you just said the key phrase. Does it surpass human understanding? That question has the right philosophy backing it up. Things we don't understand are understood by God which allows us access to explore our own limitations of reason and logic trusting in His eternal infinite logic and reason.

I can't prove it but it is the best presupposition based on the evidence and the order we observe based on things that obviously have order even if we don't understand them. <_<

Quantum Mechanics is the study the phenomena of things that are minute. Now our limits don't define actual limits of logic, just potentially the limit of our own understanding.

Isn't it amazing that something seems to define the physical world that we keep calling energy? Even matter seems to be defined by this elusive 'energy'. If that isn't a huge arrow pointing to the spiritual omnipotence and surpassing omniscience and faithfulness of our heavenly Father, I don't know what does.

#43 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 10 February 2009 - 10:17 AM

Now Scott you just said the key phrase. Does it surpass human understanding?

View Post


No it doesn't. Which is why we can perform experiments to find out more about it. Quantum mechanics doesn't prove disorder and doesn't claim to. I think Scott has missed the point of this entire argument.

#44 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 10 February 2009 - 10:27 AM

No it doesn't.  Which is why we can perform experiments to find out more about it.  Quantum mechanics doesn't prove disorder and doesn't claim to.  I think Scott has missed the point of this entire argument.

View Post

If this is true, and I believe that the phenomena of Quantum Mechanics must have an order to it, then why do so many atheists use the philosophy of Quantum Mechanics as a lever to try and defy logic or question its nature to reveal truth?

#45 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 10 February 2009 - 10:29 AM

I'm trying to find the thread that this one spawned from. A little help? I knew I should have linked it in the OP.

#46 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 10 February 2009 - 10:37 AM

Ah, I found it:

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=23938

A.Sphere was trying to imply disorder. He didn't come right out and say it but he came close.

I have found numerous atheists who love tying disorder to Quantum Mechanics. I take it from your statements that you would disagree with this philosophical attempt to prove disorder?

Adam

#47 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 10 February 2009 - 10:49 AM

Ah, I found it:

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=23938

A.Sphere was trying to imply disorder. He didn't come right out and say it but he came close.

I have found numerous atheists who love tying disorder to Quantum Mechanics. I take it from your statements that you would disagree with this philosophical attempt to prove disorder?

Adam

View Post


I don't think he was implying anything of the sort. All he said was that it could not be explained using classical theory.

#48 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 10 February 2009 - 11:09 AM

I don't think he was implying anything of the sort.  All he said was that it could not be explained using classical theory.

View Post


Yeah, but the nature of the thread was philosophical don't you agree? I think that is why I'm participating in this thread the way I am. Quantum Mechanics is most interesting because it seems to have a different set of rules as you would agree. However, what does it mean? Does new rules require new philosophy? Does logic and information alter because physical laws change per our limited understanding?

I think CTD made a good thread addressing some of the quackery that springs from Quantum Theory...

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1692

#49 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 10 February 2009 - 11:45 AM

Yeah, but the nature of the thread was philosophical don't you agree? I think that is why I'm participating in this thread the way I am. Quantum Mechanics is most interesting because it seems to have a different set of rules as you would agree. However, what does it mean? Does new rules require new philosophy? Does logic and information alter because physical laws change per our limited understanding?

I think CTD made a good thread addressing some of the quackery that springs from Quantum Theory...

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1692

View Post


I disagree. I don't think that it is a philosophical issue. I think it is a scientific one. The physical processes that Quantum Mechanics describes are testable and verifiable by experiment. The real world doesn't care whether we like it or not. It persists regardless.

#50 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 10 February 2009 - 11:46 AM

I disagree.  I don't think that it is a philosophical issue.  I think it is a scientific one.  The physical processes that Quantum Mechanics describes are testable and verifiable by experiment.  The real world doesn't care whether we like it or not.  It persists regardless.

View Post

I like it. I think we're on the same page...

...except for one thing. How would you exclude something from being a philosophical issue?

#51 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 10 February 2009 - 12:10 PM

I like it. I think we're on the same page...

...except for one thing. How would you exclude something from being a philosophical issue?

View Post


Are you saying that everything is a philosophical issue?

#52 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 10 February 2009 - 12:35 PM

Are you saying that everything is a philosophical issue?

View Post

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Philosophy

The utilitarian thinks there is a physical mathematical solution to bring about the maximum happiness for the maximum number of people. This is a very scientific concept but it's rooted in philosophical naturalism.

Utilitarianism has been shown to be a surprising reservoir of failure to see the truth of things.

Marxism was considered very scientific and really is mathematical and systematic in its approach to social structuring. It too, is best known for its failure.

Philosophy is inescapable.

Even doing something mundane like mowing your grass is rooted in philosophy. How often should you cut it? What pattern are you using? Are you trying to achieve beauty or are you simply making a convenient place for recreation? Maybe you just do it because that's our culture's norm. Should you cut your grass with a thankful heart or should you cut it begrudgingly because you have to do it over and over again?

As a Christian I believe a spiritual healing is the only logical starting point for true joy.

The philosophical naturalist looks to material needs and possibly self-will and determination to enjoy the illusion of consciousness as long as the material body holds out and is reasonably satisfied for its desires.

So see if you can answer the question:

How would you exclude something from being a philosophical issue?

Even trying to label something neutral or static is philosophical.

Adam

#53 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 10 February 2009 - 12:45 PM

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Philosophy

The utilitarian thinks there is a physical mathematical solution to bring about the maximum happiness for the maximum number of people. This is a very scientific concept but it's rooted in philosophical naturalism.

Utilitarianism has been shown to be a surprising reservoir of failure to see the truth of things.

Marxism was considered very scientific and really is mathematical and systematic in its approach to social structuring. It too, is best known for its failure.

Philosophy is inescapable.

Even doing something mundane like mowing your grass is rooted in philosophy. How often should you cut it? What pattern are you using? Are you trying to achieve beauty or are you simply making a convenient place for recreation? Maybe you just do it because that's our culture's norm. Should you cut your grass with a thankful heart or should you cut it begrudgingly because you have to do it over and over again?

As a Christian I believe a spiritual healing is the only logical starting point for true joy.

The philosophical naturalist looks to material needs and possibly self-will and determination to enjoy the illusion of consciousness as long as the material body holds out and is reasonably satisfied for its desires.

So see if you can answer the question:

How would you exclude something from being a philosophical issue?

Even trying to label something neutral or static is philosophical.

Adam

View Post


Ok, so everything is philosophy. That still doesn't stop physical processes carrying on regardless.

#54 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 10 February 2009 - 01:34 PM

Ok, so everything is philosophy.  That still doesn't stop physical processes carrying on regardless.

View Post

Now the tricky question is; Do the heavens declare the glory of God or do they declare mindless happenstance?

Physical processes are observed to carry on but what can be extrapolated from this observed "carrying on"?

Each person on this planet has a philosophy. The question is; Is this philosophy promoting eyes to be opened or eyes to be closed?

#55 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 10 February 2009 - 02:41 PM

I disagree.  I don't think that it is a philosophical issue.  I think it is a scientific one.  The physical processes that Quantum Mechanics describes are testable and verifiable by experiment.  The real world doesn't care whether we like it or not.  It persists regardless.

View Post

When I see sound philosophy used to explain the results, I'll be slightly interested. When I see quantum philosophy, I'm disgusted. Make sense?

Now what's going on in this thread, should not be mistaken. "Quantum" experiments have been drug out in an attempt to convince people to abandon sound philosophy and adopt quantum philosophy. As I demonstrated earlier, quantum philosophy cannot even obey its own rules, and is opposed to scientific endeavour. Adopting it is not an honest option, it is only an option for one who intends to facilitate self-delusion.

#56 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 10 February 2009 - 02:55 PM

Premise: when you don't know an answer, you are free to dream up any answer you choose, even if you have to violate logic.

That's utterly absurd! And totally obvious about being utterly absurd.

#57 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 10 February 2009 - 03:26 PM

When I see sound philosophy used to explain the results, I'll be slightly interested. When I see quantum philosophy, I'm disgusted. Make sense?

Now what's going on in this thread, should not be mistaken. "Quantum" experiments have been drug out in an attempt to convince people to abandon sound philosophy and adopt quantum philosophy. As I demonstrated earlier, quantum philosophy cannot even obey its own rules, and is opposed to scientific endeavour. Adopting it is not an honest option, it is only an option for one who intends to facilitate self-delusion.

View Post


All I see here are complaints about quantum mechanics on the grounds that some people don't understand it. No one has put forward a better theory or even been able to show where it is wrong, even though it is applied in the making of modern technology.

Where exactly did you demonstrate that quantum mechanics doesn't work? You do know that there is probably a Nobel prize in that for you don't you?

#58 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 10 February 2009 - 03:57 PM

All I see here are complaints about quantum mechanics on the grounds that some people don't understand it. 

Your hallucinations aren't my concern.

No one has put forward a better theory or even been able to show where it is wrong, even though it is applied in the making of modern technology.

Saying "I don't know" is better than abandoning logic.

Where exactly did you demonstrate that quantum mechanics doesn't work? 

View Post

In this thread. I bet most folks who care can recall. Those who can't can review the thread unless their browsers are deficient.

You do know that there is probably a Nobel prize in that for you don't you?

That sorry line? Like I wasn't disgusted enough already? Pfft!

I'll get my prize when my Creator decides it's time, and there's nothing you or anyone else can do to stop it.

#59 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 10 February 2009 - 04:01 PM

I disagree.  I don't think that it is a philosophical issue.  I think it is a scientific one.  The physical processes that Quantum Mechanics describes are testable and verifiable by experiment.  The real world doesn't care whether we like it or not.  It persists regardless.

View Post



It's not really shocking that the same people who think scientists who study evolution are akin to medieval alchemists, would find it just as easy to dismiss the theories of quantum mechanics, is it?

#60 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 10 February 2009 - 04:16 PM

It's not really shocking that the same people who think scientists who study evolution are akin to medieval alchemists, would find it just as easy to dismiss the theories of quantum mechanics, is it?

View Post

It's not really surprising to see propagandizing. The false philosophy really is difficult to defend directly.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users