view of theoretical physicist

[1over137]

* I wonder whether atheists think deeply about the various issues. When I was atheist I did not pay that much attention to Christian thinking. I was brought up in atheistic family. I was told to read Bible with keeping distance from it. Not to be sucked in. I also thought that Christians are not wise people and I did not explore Christian thinkers which was mistake. Maybe there are many atheists who were like me not exploring things.

* I am theoretical physicist and can talk about physics and its relation to faith. I do not find anything disturbing my faith. Even my university physics professors never said anything disturbing on their lectures. One thing I remember very well: One of my physics teachers wondered that the world is describable. There are quite few laws describing vast amount of things. And one really wonders about this. And one can wonder further. Where are the laws from? What is their origin? One my athiest friend does not wonder about this, because he says that when he wondered about this he could also wonder about the origin of God. So, he simply dismisses this question about the origin of laws.

* As a theoretical physicist I see beauty and harmony in the creation, in its laws. This evokes in me that there must be someone greater, some great Physicist/Mathematician. Thinking about the vast creation makes me humble. I think that people need to be humble and have respect. I am not saying that they should not continue in the exploration, in fact, opposite is true. God also says that it is the glory of God to conceal a matter and the glory of kings to search that out.

* The fact that I see order in the universe and not chaos means something. But people are quick to dismiss it by refering to anthropical principle saying that if it was not so there would be noone wondering about it. That's it. They stop there.

* Maybe people are afraid to explore things further. Because as soon as they admit that there is Christian God they also must admit that there is devil and also forces we do not have control over. And this is very scary.

* One thing I wonder about as a theoretical physicist is what is the spirit composed of? I know there are quarks, leptons, photons, weak bosons, gluons and it seems that higgs boson too. But what about the spirit? If it interacted with the known particles could we detect it whenever we wanted?

[bippy123]

1lover137 here is a very interesting post by richard conn henry as he converted from atheism to a sort of spiritual deism from the evidence from quantum mechanics alone. The reason why atheists didnt come down hard on him was because he had a very strong reputation in the scientific community.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellig ... -designer/

o begin, I point out this essay in the prestigious scientific journal Nature in 2005 by physicist Richard Conn Henry:

“The ultimate cause of atheism, Newton asserted, is ‘this notion of bodies having, as it were, a complete, absolute and independent reality in themselves.’”
…
The 1925 discovery of quantum mechanics solved the problem of the Universe’s nature. Bright physicists were again led to believe the unbelievable — this time, that the Universe is mental.
…
According to Sir James Jeans: “the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter…we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter.”
….
The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual.

Richard Conn Henry
The Mental Universe: Nature Volume 436

[1over137]

Thank you for bringing my attention to it. Here is the article itself:
http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf

Prof. Henry claims:

"in ‘Renninger-type’ experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The Universe is entirely mental."

"One benefit of switching humanity to a correct perception of the world is the resulting joy of discovering the mental nature of the Universe. We have no idea what this mental nature implies, but — the great thing is — it is true. Beyond the acquisition of this perception, physics can no longer help."

Here I read about the Reeninger-type experiments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renninger_ ... experiment
- see sections 'The Mott problem' and 'Renninger's negative-result experiment'

Here is some youtube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jO8M07Numfs

Now my input:

How Prof. Henry can claim that the wave function was collapsed by our human mind seeing nothing? I suppose he does not have proof for this. I also suppose he is not aware of the works of experimental physicist Leonard Mandel. Here is quote from his scientific article (L. Mandel, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71 (1999) S274):

"... in an experiment the state reflects not what is actualy known about the system, but rather what is knowable, in principle, with the help of auxiliary measurements that do not disturb the original experiment. By focusing on what is knowable in principle, and treating what is known as largely irrelevant, one completely avoids the anthropomorphism and any reference to consciousness that some physicists have tried to inject into quantum mechanics."

I further do not see why is it claimed that Prof. Henry is deist? He himself says that he does not know what the notion of mental nature implies.

[1over137]

I need an opponent. Am lonely theoretical physicist here.

[RickD]

I need an opponent. Am lonely theoretical physicist here.

Hana, I was going to oppose you. But since you're fairly new at theoretical physics, I didn't want to embarrass you. I'm quite the physics connoisseur you know.

[bippy123]

Hana, here in his review of a quantum book
Conn Henry states that he had converted from atheism to deism.


http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellig ... -designer/

So does Henry posit a Deity? In his review of the book Quantum Enigma:Physics Encounters Consciousness Henry offers the following:



It is more than 80 years since the discovery of quantum mechanics gave us the most fundamental insight ever into our nature: the overturning of the Copernican Revolution, and the restoration of us human beings to centrality in the Universe.

And yet, have you ever before read a sentence having meaning similar to that of my preceding sentence? Likely you have not, and the reason you have not is, in my opinion, that physicists are in a state of denial…
….
In his Gifford lectures, very shortly after the 1925 discovery of quantum mechanics, Arthur Stanley Eddington (who immediately quantum mechanics was discovered realized that this meant that the universe was purely mental, and that indeed there was no such thing as “physical”) said “it is difficult for the matter-of-fact physicist to accept the view that the substratum of everything is of mental character.” What an understatement! On this fundamental topic, physicists are mostly terrified wimps.

And what are these “terrors” that prevent the acceptance of the obvious? I think it is a combination of the fear of being ridiculed, plus the fear of the religious implications. Does that sound familiar?
….
When, not so long ago, I grew baffled that there was no concise and clear public statement concerning the most important philosophical discovery, ever, in the history of science; and, I decided, therefore, that I must make such a public statement myself and I did so, in an essay in Nature, “The mental Universe,” I knew that no such negative response could possibly occur in my case, because of the fine character of my great university;

….
“Quantum Enigma” only mentions the quantum Zeno effect in passing, which surprises me. Despite their timidity, it is quite clear that our shivering authors know darned well that mind is central and nothing shows the truth of that more clearly than does the quantum Zeno effect.
….

For an atheist such as myself, the result is simultaneously enormous, and minor. I have made the leap of faith that MY mind is not the universe: well, you will not be surprised to learn that I sure don’t accept that YOURS is! So, I am forced to meet the Great omniscient Spirit, GoS. How do you do! Pleased to meet you! I am here not at all joking; as I go for my hour of walking each day, I not infrequently hold hands with GoS.

You can see what I mean by “enormous.” Of fundamental importance to me. But minor at the same time, because that is the end of it. The first ten Presidents of the United States were all Deists, not Christians. As was Lincoln. I join them in that belief.

The authors make the critical point that religious belief flowing out of quantum mechanics does not in any way validate “intelligent design.” (Indeed, in my view ID is insulting to GoS, who is surely not, as the authors emphasize, a tinkerer.)

Richard Conn Henry
Review Quantum Enigma

[1over137]

I need an opponent. Am lonely theoretical physicist here.

Hana, I was going to oppose you. But since you're fairly new at theoretical physics, I didn't want to embarrass you. I'm quite the physics connoisseur you know.

I know, Rick, I know.

[1over137]

I think Prof. Henry is wrong and stuck in the past. And I do not feel like terrified wimp. I am prepared for the truth whatever it is. 

I am glad that he is not afraid of going to public and saying his views. And I am not afraid to oppose him however fine his great university is.

And I hope that one day he realizes that GoS is indeed God.

And I am joining Newton, Ockham, Copernicus, Giordano Bruno, Kepler, Thomas Bayes, Marie Curie and many more in their faith ...

[bippy123]

Hana, I also agree that Gos is God

[Hello]

Fist, I would like to say that I am a Christian, but I was extremely disturbed by the blog post "Why Steven Hawking is Wrong About Not Creating the Universe" (Richard Deem, 2012). I am a neuroscience and psychology major, mainly because Im very curious about relating human behavior with biological (which are ultimately chemical processes). My overall criticism as to Deem's post is every one of his points indicate that he has had no education of the subject of physics, mainly due to the fact that he incorrectly defined just a majority of Steven Hawking's theories. However, the I do understand that it is hard for the uneducated to have a true understanding of what they don't know.

Now, I admit I am only a college senior, but I've taken enough physics classes and chemistry classes to defend my argument point by point. Deem's first argument implies that the main point of Steven Hawkings M-theroy (or the existence of other dimensions) is comprised of different sets of theories so that "one may obtain just about anything one wants". My first criticism to this argument is that it is entirely unrelated to M-theory. It is based upon logical conclusions that any specific dimension level, the elements in that dimension are "stuck" in that dimension. Here I have provided a link for anyone who would like to explore the universe beyond simplistic and (mostly irrelevant) arguments that both Christians and Atheists fail to address ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnURElCzGc0 ). The video discusses the first, second, third (the dimension we are in), and fourth dimension (time). The second issue I have with Deem's argument is that he fails to realize that string theory suggests that it is possible to live out side of time. This factor (which may I remind readers is one of the main points of Steven Hawking's M-thoery) is supportive of Christianity. Im no saint, and I don't have the Bible "memorized" like the pharases would pride themselves on (good joke i know XP) but I know enough to say that the Bible specifically says that God existed before time. However (if you watched the youtube video) we cannot cognitively understand this in a visual way.

My second criticism to this blog regards Deem's discussion on the laws of physics. I found his argument very disturbing due to the fact that many Christians are taught and believe this completely inaccurate and ignorant argument, and is just one of the few things that atheists have such little respect for Christians (which I admit they rightly have the right too). But back to my main point, Deem seems to be under the false and naive impression that a "spontaneous" reaction is one that occurs from no source (and Steven Hawking did not even develop this concept, it has been researched and explored for over a century). The true definition of a spontaneous reaction is one that occurs between a system and a surrounding DUE TO and input from energy! Spontaneity of a reaction refers to the DIRECTION in which it will proceed. A simple example would be the tendency for a round object rolling down a hill, instead of up a hill (because of gravity). In fact, this simplistic concept is also SUPPORTIVE of a God, however to go into complete detail as to how it supportive of a God. However, I will provide a brief explanation: the spontaneity of a reaction (such as infinitesimal probability that a ball with roll down a hill when only stimulated by gravity) is due to the nearly "impossible" probability that the ball would roll up the hill under the same conditions.

As far as our current and limited knowledge of the big bang is concerned, it was a highly "impossible" occurrence. Therefore, indicating (not proving) that some force outside our concept of time initiated. Personally, I have came to the conclusion that because God can exist outside the dimension of time, there is no evidence that I am aware of that disproves his existence. However, I would like to humbly confirm that I am aware (as far as science, religion, etc. is concerned), there is still much I do not yet know and may never be able to understand.

I hope my post may motivated some people to explore atheistic arguments themselves. I personally believe unless one explores the arguments from other viewpoints, he or she will never have the privilege of expanding his or her understanding of religion. Additionally, to Christians who actually explore and research the main criticisms against Christianity (beyond the teachings of biased information), thank you for being the small majority who dont contribute the unscientific reputation Christianity has sadly (but understandably) attained.