1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Quantum mechanics teaches a probabilistic, not deterministic, universe

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by BilliardsBall, Oct 12, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. BilliardsBall

    BilliardsBall Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    6,346
    Ratings:
    +403
    Religion:
    Messianic Jewish Christianity
    Free will and determinism? Note this fascinating Quora answer and the spot I highlighted...


    Paul Ikeda, HSDD Expert, 1st to solve EMI issues blocking Gigabit Rollout for 2+ years.
    Updated Sep 17
    “How can things have both particle and wave properties?”
    Good question.
    Accepted science can’t answer that question but I once asked myself that same question in the early 90s and came up with this model which is just my own hypothesis, as an expert in the behavior of electromagnetic waves in the field of high speed digital design, of how something can have properties of both a particle and a wave:

    Figure 1: A Dual Particle Wave Helix Model shows a particle in positive time entangled with an antiparticle in negative time such that the pair are locked in a virtual dual orbit as they propagate through space in differential time.
    Negative Time:
    To understand what negative time is we need to go back to the Big Bang at the beginning of time when all matter and antimatter was initially created as entangled particle pairs.
    According to CPT symmetry which stands for Charge conjugation, Parity transformation, and Time reversal, for an antiverse to be consistent it requires all three symmetries.
    Most scientists found time reversal too hard to swallow due to paradoxes like the grandfather paradox, but lets assume its true for now.
    Remember it’s the beginning of time when all matter/antimatter pairs were created. Normally if an entangled pair was created today they would both exist in spacetime moving in opposite directions of space. But at the Big Bang space and time flip-flop so let’s assume the pair were created moving in opposite directions of time instead satisfying CPT symmetry.
    Besides, if matter/antimatter pairs were moving in opposite directions in space at the Big Bang, that would create a conundrum. After all, if all matter expanded or inflated away from the singularity, wouldn’t that imply that all anti-matter must have been created moving towards the singularity?
    But here’s the thing: reverse time at the beginning of time wouldn’t be time running in reverse like a video running backwards. That would imply a history and at the beginning of time, there is no history. Therefore antimatter running backwards through time starting from zero must exist in a dimension of negative time!
    A good analogy of the time line would be a number line which has both negative and positive integers counting up from a common origin:
    ..., -10, -9, -8, -7, -6, -5, -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, +3, +4, +5, +6, +7, +8, +9, +10, ...
    Notice that the two time rays never overlap, so there’s no chance of going backwards to ones own past. Essentially you just have two time rays with each following the arrow of increasing entropy.
    Furthermore thr traditional light cone of the Big Bang that represents 3D space as a 2D disk that expands over time would now be a dual light cone which also happens to be a more proper analog of the dual cone used in conics theory.

    Figure 2: The Big Bang Dual light cone model explains the symmetry of matter as predicted by Noether’s Theorem.
    Not only that, when taking the square root of some value is required, then many tend to just ignore negative values when they don’t make sense to us even though it’s correct to say that the results should be both positive and negative.
    When we include an antiverse, take a look at what happens to the plot of the lorentz factor, α vs relative velocity, β:

    Figure 2: Alpha vs Beta plot. The lorentz factor vs relative velocity when taking both positive and negative values into account results in a unit circle! positive and negative beta represents relative motion apart from each other or towards each other. Positive and negative values for alpha represent the universe and the hidden anti-verse.
    Moving on, because each particle is entangled with it’s anti-particle mate, the dual universes would not be two independent universes. They would actually be identical mirrored Universes that shared a single determinism. another words the two would actually behave as a single universe as two sides of the same coin. Yet because matter and antimatter existed in oppodite dimensions of time, they would never have self annihilated.
    Instead they would coexist in differential time 180° out of phase from each other. That’s why there is no evidence of the antimatter created by the Big Bang.
    According to CPT symmetry, an observer in one universe would not be able to distinguish which universe they existed in which is exactly what we would expect in the dual light cone universe. They are identical but opposite universes.
    Now since they exist in two different dimensions of time but in the same three dimensions of space, then if you rotated one cone and fliped it on top of the other, all particles would align in space except for particles rotating with an angular momentum. Matter and antimatter would both be rotating in the same direction of CW or CCW but they would be 180° phase shifted from one another which brings us back to the dual helix in differential time.

    And yet, if we ever tried to observe the particle directly we could not ever be able to observe two particles with opposite charges in a dual orbit. The act of observing the particle would break the entanglement and we could only ever be able to observe a single particle with a single charge moving in a straight line through spacetime.
    This new logical model would immediately explain:
    • why we can’t find the antimatter created at the Big Bang
    • the properties of quantum spin in orbits that are larger than the particle
    • intrinsic dipole moments where they behave as if they were dipole bar magnets spinning in a magnetic field
    • why quantum spin can only be measured to be either up or down regardless of the angle that we orient the electric field
    • why they seem to require two rotations in order to complete a single wave instead of one rotation per wavelength as we would expect for a single particle that was moving in a rotational path.
    • dual universes explains the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle where each universe can only observe half of the information.
    How free will can exist in a deterministic universe due to the fact that uncertainty prevents our knowing our own deterministic future. We choose our path, but the path can only be predicted by some higher dimensional being who can see both frames of time at once thus resolving the logical paradox of free will and a deterministic future.
    • why the durac equation predicts both matter and antimatter
    • why the durac equation predicts a g factor of two
    • waves propagating through differential time explains instantanious action at a distance
    • how a light wave can self propagate forever through a vacuum
    • why time only flows in the direction of increasing entropy
    • the missing loop of charged particles that can explain how magnetic fields are created.
    • why its not a negative charge over an infinite virtual ocean of negative charged particles with a void, but simply a negative charged particle and a positive charged particle.
    • how it could be the logical model for one of the two hidden extra-dimensional loop dimensions per world line of string theory. The second orthogonal hidden dimension is explained in another logical model which explains gravity, dark matter, gravitons, how the Einstein Rosen Bridge is maintained by negative energy, unifies all forces as the EM force and finally explains what caused the Big Bang.
    • why EM waves seem to propagate in both directions of time
    • why antimatter seems to behave exactly like matter in reverse time
    • where the antimatter came from that annihilates with matter at the event horrizon of black holes thus resolving the black hole paradox
    and probably many other unsolved mysteries of physics. in fact between all three parts of my proposed TOE, every mystery, singularity, unsolved paradox can be logically explained in simple and self consistent manner. But, again, I digress.
    Back to your question: Does this explain the evidence of the particle/wave behavior?
    Yes, I think it does. Since the entanglement of the particles across dimensions of time are what causes the properties of the wave, observing the particle would break the entanglement and collapse the wave so that the two particles would no longer propagate in a virtual dual orbit in differential time and instead move in a straight line as a single particle in normal spacetime.
    Left unobserved, then the entangled particles propagate through both slits though they be in opposite universes of differential time which causes the interferance pattern while we only observe the evidence of a single photon hitting the screen at a time. Another words we observe the evidence of a single photon hitting the screen one at a time, but where the photon strikes the screen is determined by their refraction through both slits which therefore causes the probability wave distribution pattern of photons hitting the screen. i.e. bright bands of high probability and dark bands of low probability.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Altfish

    Altfish Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2014
    Messages:
    4,538
    Ratings:
    +3,806
    Religion:
    Humanist
    Good grief, a non-scientist posting on Quantum Mechanics, priceless.

    Wasn't it Richard Feynman who once said, "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." ?

    But needless to say, Creationists know better.
     
    • Winner Winner x 4
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  3. Woberts

    Woberts The Perfumed Seneschal

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2018
    Messages:
    1,612
    Ratings:
    +1,095
    Religion:
    Pastafarian
    *yawn*
    So is this supposed to prove god exists?
    That's usually what you try to do with these threads, after all.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    1,994
    Ratings:
    +1,261
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    A bit lengthy and speculative in places, but certainly QM is one of the modern theories that seems to militate against a deterministic universe.

    Chaos theory does a bit of the same, acknowledging, as it does, that systems exist for which infinitesimally small changes in initial conditions lead to arbitrarily large changes in outcome. So if you put the two together, you have a recipe for some things being unpredictable.

    The old Newtonian determinism is rather out of fashion today in science, although there are people struggling to recover it via Hidden Variable theories etc. Einstein famously hated the fall of determinism and felt it must be wrong: "God does not play dice". But the evidence to date is that Einstein was wrong about this.

    Personally I have always found it aesthetically pleasing and comforting to feel that we cannot know everything about everything to any desired degree of precision. It feels somehow right that science teaches us a modicum of humility in this respect. And apart from anything else, it seems to leave the door ajar for free will. Though I admit this may be a superficial conclusion on my part.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. viole

    viole Metaphysical Naturalist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    7,294
    Ratings:
    +2,868
    Religion:
    Gnostic Atheism
    Ok. Will is not determined, then. It just pops out randomly.

    Better?

    Ciao

    - viole
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  6. Hubert Farnsworth

    Hubert Farnsworth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2016
    Messages:
    1,867
    Ratings:
    +1,272
    Religion:
    Devout Agnostic
    Too long, didn't read. But out of curiosity, since you claim to know about quantum mechanics, I"d like to know what the highest level of mathematics and physics courses that you have taken are.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    7,502
    Ratings:
    +6,866
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    This looks to me like someone who has only the very basics of QM and does way too much speculation based on little understanding.
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    1,994
    Ratings:
    +1,261
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    Don't be too harsh, Hubert. It is effort by a creationist to engage with science. And it is not all baloney, or so it seemed to me on skim-reading, even if some of the conclusions are stretching credulity a bit.
     
    #8 exchemist, Oct 12, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2018
  9. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    22,997
    Ratings:
    +7,877
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    Exactly!


    And regarding BilliardsBall fave point:

    "And yet, if we ever tried to observe the particle directly we could not ever be able to observe two particles with opposite charges in a dual orbit. The act of observing the particle would break the entanglement and we could only ever be able to observe a single particle with a single charge moving in a straight line through spacetime.
    This new logical model would immediately explain:

    • How free will can exist in a deterministic universe due to the fact that uncertainty prevents our knowing our own deterministic future. We choose our path, but the path can only be predicted by some higher dimensional being who can see both frames of time at once thus resolving the logical paradox of free will and a deterministic future.
    A lot of bull twaddle.

    Problem is, our knowledge or lack of knowledge of the controlling factors does not change them. They will be what they will be whether we are aware of them or not. And because the universe, which includes how we operate, is deterministic there is no such thing as true choosing, choice, or chosen.

    Paul Ikeda best stick to his High Speed Digital Design, and stay away from silly pronouncements about the necessity of a "higher dimensional being."

    .



    .
     
    #9 Skwim, Oct 12, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2018
    • Winner Winner x 2
  10. Nowhere Man

    Nowhere Man Bompu Zen Man with a little bit of Bushido.

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    17,683
    Ratings:
    +5,976
    Religion:
    Zen Buddhism
    I don't even think academia would understand what you're trying to say.

    For me I think I'll wait for the lay man's version or when I morph into another dimension. Whichever comes first.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    22,997
    Ratings:
    +7,877
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    I don't believe BB understands what 's been said either, other than he really likes the part about the "higher dimensional being."

    .
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  12. David T

    David T Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    5,116
    Ratings:
    +1,735
    So its deterministic that you understand the universe is deterministic.? If that holds as yes, then it was deterministic that paul said its not deterministic.
     
  13. Hubert Farnsworth

    Hubert Farnsworth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2016
    Messages:
    1,867
    Ratings:
    +1,272
    Religion:
    Devout Agnostic
    I'm not being harsh. In order to understand advanced physics, you need a background in mathematics that I seriously doubt he has. Also, I hope you realize his post is obviously a copy paste and not his original words. Note the "Figure 1", "Figure 2" etc, which obviously indicate it was taken from an article or book with images.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  14. David T

    David T Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    5,116
    Ratings:
    +1,735
    Richard feynman said no one really understands, but it works. But statistics leads to all kinds of interpretations.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    22,997
    Ratings:
    +7,877
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    You got it!

    .
     
  16. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    4,467
    Ratings:
    +4,203
    Religion:
    None
    Nevertheless, drop a billiard ball and it will fall in a deterministic and predictable way even though its subatomic constituents each has a statistical description. That's how large numbers of particles can make a collection of them behave predictably - the principle that insurance companies and casinos use to prognosticate accurately within a decreasing margin of error as the sample size grows. Not knowing the future does not equate to the presence of free will or indeterministic macroscopic physics.

    We have no evidence of higher dimensional beings, and so far, no need to add them to our science or our personal worldviews. Nor is there any reason to believe that if such a creature or creatures existed, that they would not behave as predictably as the falling billiard ball
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
  17. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    14,636
    Ratings:
    +3,142
    Religion:
    Pi π
    I struggle with the long post because BB didn’t break up most of the paragraphs with double-line, and when he didn’t quote external sources that made it difficult for me to determine his opinions from others.

    But I found this below, which he highlighted himself, in the midst of his opinions on the Big Bang, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, out-of-place:

    To me, not of his post before this very point actually follow what he say here, about “free will” and “higher dimensional being”.

    This point here, make his whole OP nothing more than sophistry, or to be more brutally frank - philosophical BS.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  18. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    1,994
    Ratings:
    +1,261
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    Well of course I realise that. He's not pretending he wrote it. He says quite clearly at the outset it is a Quora answer.

    As for needing maths to understand QM, yes and no. I think you can understand the idea of the Uncertainty Principle without maths, even though you won't be able to see how it arises unless you are familiar with how waves interfere with one another. I certainly think the philosophical point about the fall of determinism can be appreciated without maths. Einstein's complaint that "God does not play dice" makes the issue clear to anyone.
     
  19. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    14,636
    Ratings:
    +3,142
    Religion:
    Pi π
    BB should have provided at the very least a url where he got his cut-and-paste, and put what is not his own comment in quote.

    What bb highlighted is his main point, which is total rubbish. The question is why bb posted that whole thing in the first place?
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  20. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    1,994
    Ratings:
    +1,261
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    Again I find you harsh. Yes, the quoted passage is full of woo and yes BB has highlighted a scientifically unwarranted leap of faith, jumping from the lack of determinism in the universe to the existence of a "higher being". But the philosophical point about free will and determinism, which is what the title of the thread and the Quora discussion are about, is not wholly silly, at least.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...