Jump to content
lidal

Does nature have a foreknowledge of observer’s motions and actions - Scientific proof of God based on quantum phenomena

Recommended Posts

On Monday, July 27, 2020 at 7:51 AM, Markus Hanke said:

So God doesn't play dice, but he punches a calculator? 

God is behind all apparently random phenomena in physics. One can imagine it this way. By looking at the experimental setup of a double-slit experiment, God instantly determines the wave function. Then He sends photons to form a specific interference pattern or a specific Gaussian pattern.

On Sunday, July 26, 2020 at 10:17 PM, swansont said:

Virtual photons, in the case of E&M phenomena.

Can you show, starting from “God did it” that the electrostatic force is 1/r^2?

Who/what 'tells' the charges how many virtual photons to exchange per second ?

God just chose it to be 1/r2 . We (science) can only try to figure out why He chose this and not 1/r3 , for example. ( if I have understood your question)

On Sunday, July 26, 2020 at 10:17 PM, swansont said:

Except for the instances where they have. Special relativity, for example.

 

 

On Sunday, July 26, 2020 at 10:25 PM, Strange said:

A model led to the discovery of Neptune

A model led to the discovery of antimatter.

A model led to the discovery of neutrinos.

A model led to the discovery of the expanding universe.

A model led to the discovery of dark matter.

Science is driven by experiment and by models.

 

which comes down to an argument about the correctness/incorrectness of special relativity, general relativity, dark matter, dark energy, ... which should be discussed in a different thread.

The case of the Neptune is an example of a remarkable success of a model, Newton's laws. But discovery of the Neptune is not a new insight.

But Newton's model is also an example of models that can lead to new insights. Such models are correct but incomplete. I clarify my previous statement as:

CORRECT models may lead to new insights. Examples are Newton's laws, QM. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lidal said:

God is behind all apparently random phenomena in physics. One can imagine it this way. By looking at the experimental setup of a double-slit experiment, God instantly determines the wave function. Then He sends photons to form a specific interference pattern or a specific Gaussian pattern.

But the theories work just as well without gods doing this. You could just as well say that there an an infinite number of invisible pink flying unicorns guiding each photon to the right place. It is simply an unnecessary addition.

1 hour ago, lidal said:

CORRECT models may lead to new insights. Examples are Newton's laws, QM. 

Incorrect models are, perhaps, more likely to lead to insights. The inability of classical theory to explain the black body spectrum or the photoelectric effect resulted in the first attempts at quantisation. The observed limits of Newtonian gravity was one of the reasons that people were looking for a new theory of gravity at the end of the 19th century.

1 hour ago, lidal said:

God just chose it to be 1/r2 . We (science) can only try to figure out why He chose this and not 1/r3 , for example. ( if I have understood your question)

Apparently, you haven't.

We can, from either theory or experiment, determine a result. Then you say "because God wanted it that way". (And, contrary to what you say, you can never know why She wanted it that way; she may have just been moving in mysterious ways.)

You can't start from "God wants ..." and come up with a testable hypothesis.

And if those results that you so proudly say are because of God turn out to be incorrect, you have to back down and say, "no, God didn't actually want that"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Strange said:

But the theories work just as well without gods doing this. You could just as well say that there an an infinite number of invisible pink flying unicorns guiding each photon to the right place. It is simply an unnecessary addition.

Incorrect models are, perhaps, more likely to lead to insights. The inability of classical theory to explain the black body spectrum or the photoelectric effect resulted in the first attempts at quantisation. The observed limits of Newtonian gravity was one of the reasons that people were looking for a new theory of gravity at the end of the 19th century.

Apparently, you haven't.

We can, from either theory or experiment, determine a result. Then you say "because God wanted it that way".

You can't start from "God wants ..." and come up with a testable hypothesis.

And if those results that you so proudly say are because of God turn out to be incorrect, you have to back down and say, "no, God didn't actually want that"

Looking at the behavior of 'Which-Way' and quantum erasure experiments, it is not unreasonable, and is rational, to conclude that there is some intelligent being aiming the photons at specific points on the screen. You can call it an intelligent universe, or an alien, if you don't want to believe in God.

I might back down only if it turned out that the 'Which-Way' and quantum erasure experiments are wrong. In that case, I may back down from the view that God intervenes in the universe to the point of aiming each emitted photon/electton.

Edited by lidal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, lidal said:

Looking at the behavior of 'Which-Way' and quantum erasure experiments, it is not unreasonable, and is rational, to conclude that there is some intelligent being aiming the photons at specific points on the screen.

It may appear reasonable and rational to you, but it seems quite the opposite to me. That is the trouble with basing explanations on personal beliefs instead of science; the explanations are only meaningful to the person who invented them. 

28 minutes ago, lidal said:

might back down only if it turned out that the 'Which-Way' and quantum erasure experiments are wrong. In that case, I may back down from the view that God intervenes in the universe to the point of aiming each emitted photon/electton.

You would have had to admit god was wrong if you had made the same claims about classical electromagnetic theory, Newtonian gravity, phlogiston, caloric and any number of other theories. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Strange said:

 

Incorrect models are, perhaps, more likely to lead to insights. The inability of classical theory to explain the black body spectrum or the photoelectric effect resulted in the first attempts at quantisation. The observed limits of Newtonian gravity was one of the reasons that people were looking for a new theory of gravity at the end of the 19th century.

 

 For me, Newton's theory is correct, but incomplete. This means gravity is a force. For you, as suppotter of general relativity, Newton's theory is wrong because gravity is not a force but is due to warping of four dimensional spacetime.

So our argument is based on our views about which theories are correct and which are incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, lidal said:

For me, Newton's theory is correct, but incomplete. This means gravity is a force. For you, as suppotter of general relativity, Newton's theory is wrong because gravity is not a force but is due to warping of four dimensional spacetime.

No, that is not my view. (Wasn’t it you who said there can only be one correct theory?)

But you are missing (avoiding?) the point: your “god did it” explanation can only ever be post hoc. You can use it for an explanation only after science tells you what happens. Then you nod sagely and say, “ah yes, god”. This is completely unscientific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

You would have had to admit god was wrong if you had made the same claims about classical electromagnetic theory, Newtonian gravity, phlogiston, caloric and any number of other theories. 

I can't imagine making the same claims about classical theories because classical phenomena, unlike quantum phenomena, are far from obviously pointing to God. I would have settled with the 'field' concept, but kept wondering what they really are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, lidal said:

For me, Newton's theory is correct, but incomplete. This means gravity is a force. For you, as suppotter of general relativity, Newton's theory is wrong because gravity is not a force but is due to warping of four dimensional spacetime.

If you're not a supporter of GR, don't ever use a GPS navigating system; because GPS-monitoring satellites routinely use GR in order to find your location. And they seem to do a good job of it.

You see, "supporting" a theory (your words) is not like supporting a football team. You need to go back to page one on the book of science and start all over again. There's something very basic you haven't understood.

https://www.physicscentral.com/explore/writers/will.cfm#:~:text=GPS accounts for relativity by,functions within about 2 minutes.

Quote

GPS accounts for relativity by electronically adjusting the rates of the satellite clocks, and by building mathematical corrections into the computer chips which solve for the user's location. Without the proper application of relativity, GPS would fail in its navigational functions within about 2 minutes.

So the next time your plane approaches an airport in bad weather, and you just happen to be wondering "what good is basic physics?", think about Einstein and the GPS tracker in the cockpit, helping the pilots guide you to a safe landing.

 

Edited by joigus
Addition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, lidal said:

I can't imagine making the same claims about classical theories because classical phenomena, unlike quantum phenomena, are far from obviously pointing to God. I would have settled with the 'field' concept, but kept wondering what they really are.

Still avoiding the issue 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, lidal said:

This means gravity is a force.

Here’s a little experiment for you which you can do yourself - jump off a diving board into a swimming pool, and carry an (waterproof) accelerometer with you when you do that. What you will find is that while you are in free fall, the accelerometer reads exactly zero at all times (you might need to account for air resistance though). Since F=ma=m*0=0, there is no force - and yet gravity acts on you, because you are falling, and approaching your terminal velocity.
Also notice that funny feeling you get in your stomach while you fall - that is the absence of any force acting on you. Or observe those astronauts floating about on the ISS - no force acts on them, yet the ISS obviously remains gravitationally bound in its orbit around the Earth.

Just some food for thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Strange said:

No, that is not my view. (Wasn’t it you who said there can only be one correct theory?)

But you are missing (avoiding?) the point: your “god did it” explanation can only ever be post hoc. You can use it for an explanation only after science tells you what happens. Then you nod sagely and say, “ah yes, god”. This is completely unscientific.

Isn't this the same as saying that someone else cannot / should not base their research based on your earlier successful theoretical/experimental work ?

Science gets the credit for everything it has achieved so far. But science is far from complete.

God created the universe. Science discovered , not created, some mysteries of the universe. Your argument is something  like: ' God cannot use our science to prove Himself '. In the first place God allowed scientists to do research on the universe , which belongs to Him.

Perhaps He wanted that scientists (humanity) discover Him through their own choice (science), so that there will be no excuse for not believing in Him. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, lidal said:

I would have settled with the 'field' concept, but kept wondering what they really are.

They are a mathematical model that works (aka science).

You can choose to invent a post-hoc explanation involving magic flying turtles but please don’t pretend that has anything to do with science 

6 minutes ago, lidal said:

Isn't this the same as saying that someone else cannot / should not base their research based on your earlier successful theoretical/experimental work ?

No. 

Because you are not doing science. You are just using a fairy tale as an unnecessary explanation 

6 minutes ago, lidal said:

But science is far from complete.

No disagreement there. 

I’ll ignore the preachy nonsense at the end. This is, after all, a science forum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“God” is not a testable hypothesis, and therefore, not science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Here’s a little experiment for you which you can do yourself - jump off a diving board into a swimming pool, and carry an (waterproof) accelerometer with you when you do that. What you will find is that while you are in free fall, the accelerometer reads exactly zero at all times (you might need to account for air resistance though). Since F=ma=m*0=0, there is no force - and yet gravity acts on you, because you are falling, and approaching your terminal velocity.
Also notice that funny feeling you get in your stomach while you fall - that is the absence of any force acting on you. Or observe those astronauts floating about on the ISS - no force acts on them, yet the ISS obviously remains gravitationally bound in its orbit around the Earth.

Just some food for thought.

If absolute motion exists, which I believe it does, then a person in free fall in a gravitational field can detect/measure their acceleration from a continuous change in absolute velocity. Also, a person at rest on the ground in Earth's gravitational field  measures his/her absolute velocity to be (almost) constant, whereas a person accelerating in free space sees his/her absolute velocity as continuously changing.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

“God” is not a testable hypothesis, and therefore, not science.

What about this: we believe consciousness exists, but there is no way of testing it.

Just to show that not everything that exists is testable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, lidal said:

What about this: we believe consciousness exists, but there is no way of testing it.

Just to show that not everything that exists is testable.

!

Moderator Note

We can test the parts of consciousness that are scientifically recognized. The parts you claim can't be tested are all the woo and made up garbage people claim as beliefs. 

You've had four pages of this speculation, and you've consistently moved more and more towards unsupported claims and preachy hand-waving. It's not science, it's not interesting, and it's a waste of discussion resources on a site like this. Do NOT bring this up again in any way, shape, or form. since you've shown you can't support the arguments without soapboxing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, lidal said:

If absolute motion exists, which I believe it does, then a person in free fall in a gravitational field can detect/measure their acceleration from a continuous change in absolute velocity. Also, a person at rest on the ground in Earth's gravitational field  measures his/her absolute velocity to be (almost) constant, whereas a person accelerating in free space sees his/her absolute velocity as continuously changing.

None of this can be detected or measured. (Rather like your your god.) So the existence of this "absolute velocity" is a purely religious belief.

[I apologise for abusing my privileges to respond to a closed thread, but I don't think I can allow a blatantly false claim like that to go unanswered.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.