yguy

OK, so part of QM is understandable by most scientists. I never disputed that. Likewise, there are aspects of theology that make sense even to atheists - though many are loathe to admit it.

Corona688

Oooh, I like this! I'm not sure if this is a strawman(saying what ALL ATHEISTS think), poisoning the well(We're loathe to admit it, so when we don't, we're lying!), or misuse of evaluative words(loathe to admit, calling us liars) - actually, it could be all of them at once.

Just which aspect of theology am I forced, but loathe to admit, sir? Surely your astounding mind-reading prowess will reveal all!

Jesse

Your earlier statement made it sound like quantum physicists had to tack on a whole bunch of arbitrary assumptions, like "electrons can't crash into the nucleus", to make everything work out. But really, there is only one assumption that makes quantum mechanics any stranger or harder to comprehend than theories of classical physics, namely the "probability interpretation" that says the probability of observing an event is the square of the wavefunction's amplitude for that event. When a physicist is actually working on a problem in QM, all the actual work is in going to be in calculating the behavior of the wavefunction, this probability interpretation is just a simple final step at the end of the problem.

Philosophically it leads to plenty of weirdness in terms of understanding "what's really going on here", but it's not really the job of physicists to explain why the laws of physics are the way they are, or what they "mean". There were always interpretational issues in classical physics as well, like people asking, if light is a wave, what is the medium it's travelling in? Or, is there such a thing as absolute motion, or is all motion relative? The interpretational questions are not totally divorced from physics because they sometimes lead to new insights which aid in the discovery of new theories (Einstein's thinking about absolute vs. relative motion played a role in his discovery of the theory of relativity, for example), but in terms of actually solving problems and making predictions these interpretational questions are generally not very important.

Hawkingfan

yguy, Now that that is out of the way, let's get back to this...

I don't want to seem rude (I'm enjoying this thread very much), but could you clarify this regarding this subject?...

In reply to Abacus near the top of page 2 on this thread, you wrote:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for God's influence in natural events, I've suggested in my "probability and science" thread that He is the cause of random particle motion such as that of electrons,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


By "He" you mean "God", right? Because then in reply to me near the bottom of page 3 you wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, I have not accepted such a burden, not having asserted that God is the cause.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After learning a little more about random particle motion, which of your statements above is your true belief now, and why?

yguy

That was a misinterpretation on your part. My remark was directed at a statement by HF about electrons within the framework of classical mechanics - it did not refer to QM at all.

Sure, you don't have to know much about metallurgy to be a mechanic either; but mechanics aren't scientists, whose job is discovery more than prediction, it seems to me.

yguy

You appear to think that these two quotes of mine are contradictory, but they are not. A suggestion is not an assertion. My belief, however, is that indeed God is behind random particle motion, because the only allternative I've seen suggested is that nothing is behind it - unless I've missed something.

Jesse

Jesse:
Your earlier statement made it sound like quantum physicists had to tack on a whole bunch of arbitrary assumptions, like "electrons can't crash into the nucleus", to make everything work out.

yguy:
That was a misinterpretation on your part. My remark was directed at a statement by HF about electrons within the framework of classical mechanics - it did not refer to QM at all.

OK, although your statement doesn't really make sense in that case, since there is nothing in the rules of classical mechanics that would prevent an electron from crashing into the nucleus--in fact that's exactly what classical theories would lead you to predict.

Jesse:
The interpretational questions are not totally divorced from physics because they sometimes lead to new insights which aid in the discovery of new theories (Einstein's thinking about absolute vs. relative motion played a role in his discovery of the theory of relativity, for example), but in terms of actually solving problems and making predictions these interpretational questions are generally not very important.

yguy:
Sure, you don't have to know much about metallurgy to be a mechanic either; but mechanics aren't scientists, whose job is discovery more than prediction, it seems to me.

The job of physicists is to discover mathematical laws which accurately describe nature. It is not usually seen as their job to discover where the ultimate laws of physics themselves come from. Sometimes physicists may explain high-level laws in terms of more fundamental laws (like how Newtonian mechanics is the low-velocity limit of relativistic mechanics), and interpretational issues may aid in the discovery of more fundamental laws behind the current known laws, but either this process will continue forever (an infinite series of levels of laws, with each level explained in terms of a lower level) or they'll reach some set of fundamental laws which physicists will not be able to explain in terms of anything else (a final unified theory of physics). Either way, the philosophical question of why the laws of nature are the way they are is not something physicists can answer--this is literally a "metaphysical" issue.

yguy

My statement doesn't make sense? What I said was that Hawkingfan's statement that classical mechanics disallowed a collision between electron and nucleus amounted to a non-answer. Obviously you guys have different ideas about what classical mechanics means, so maybe you should take it up with him.

And what I've been getting at the whole time is that you cannot divorce the two and have any real understanding of what's going on, in my view. Aside from the matter of probability, there is also the question of how constant physical constants are, as evidenced by recent evidence that the speed of light may be slowing.

Jesse

yguy:
My statement doesn't make sense? What I said was that Hawkingfan's statement that classical mechanics disallowed a collision between electron and nucleus amounted to a non-answer. Obviously you guys have different ideas about what classical mechanics means, so maybe you should take it up with him.

I apologize, I'd forgotten Hawkingfan's comment when I said your comment didn't make sense. And yes, I would say his comment was either confused or just plain wrong, since it is only because of quantum mechanics that certain orbits are "allowed" while others are not.

Jesse:
The job of physicists is to discover mathematical laws which accurately describe nature. It is not usually seen as their job to discover where the ultimate laws of physics themselves come from.

yguy:
And what I've been getting at the whole time is that you cannot divorce the two and have any real understanding of what's going on, in my view. Aside from the matter of probability, there is also the question of how constant physical constants are, as evidenced by recent evidence that the speed of light may be slowing.

Many physicists speculate that a number of physical constants were set during a "spontaneous symmetry breaking" from a unified "Higgs field" that existed shortly after the Big Bang, in other words showing that these constants are actually set dynamically and are not really part of the fundamental laws of nature. The physicist John Baez describes it here:

The point is, when physicists put forth theories of changing "constants" they always do so in terms of some more fundamental set of laws. This is how physics always works, physicists never try to explain aspects of physics in terms of non-physical considerations like philosophy or God. If you have a problem with this, you have a problem with all of physics, not quantum mechanics in particular, and I'd actually go further and say you have a problem with science itself. It is not the job of science to explain or understand every aspect of reality, only those which can be investigated using the methodology of science. And I don't see how the question "why are the fundamental laws of nature this way as opposed to some other way?" could be investigated in a scientific manner.

Stephen Hawking begins A Brief History of Time with the following anecdote which may be appropriate here:

yguy

I certainly do, to the extent that it appears myopic in the areas I've noted.

Hey, if the scientists insist on limiting themselves in that fashion, it's their lookout.

It certainly couldn't be investigated in an empirical manner; but that aside, I think the real question is not why the laws are this way and not that, but whether those laws are stand-alone entities or possibly manifestations of the will of a Creator - in which case they would be subject to change at His will.