My introduction to quantum physics and how it led to a common denominator between science and religion: lack of proof. by Mavis Mathews
(conservative)
Sunday, November 16, 2008
CURIOUS ABOUT CHAOS
Mavis Mathews
I was mildly curious about quantum physics even before reading James Gleick's "Chaos" in 1988. That book brought on a full-blown fascination with a subject I never hope to completely understand. I enjoy the mental "stretch" of reading about things I never hope to understand. This is what I learned.
In 1988, I was a contractor, working as an administrative secretary at Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA) in Pasadena, California. Much of my job was editing and formatting book-length job proposals written by JPL engineers and physicists even though I did not actually "know the language." I did know sentence structure and I had a degree in communication so I was sometimes able to simplify a concept for the reader.
Our department was the EMC Group, an acronym for Electro-Magnetic Compatibility Group. I quickly learned that in our experimental laboratory, they were proving without a doubt, that sensitive instruments are affected by the presence of a human body entering the laboratory. That's because the human body has inherent electromagnetism. So it was necessary to allow for that effect on highly sensitive instruments when planning expeditions into space.
Prior to this century, physics had always been considered a science because it had met the requirements of science. Any experimentation that could pass this final test would qualify as a scientific experiment. The yardstick was this: the same cause had to bring about the same effect over and over and over again, ad infinitum. Or so they believed.
And then came quantum physics.
At JPL, when it came to measuring human electromagnetism and the effect that a human presence had on its surroundings, the experiments were neither dependable nor very consistent. Consequently, quantum physics did not quite make the grade as an accepted science. What it did do was to ultimately destroy the concept that the old physics is, or ever was, a legitimate science in the first place, by its own standards.
In less than a hundred years Quantum Physics has disproved some old theories and taken some experiments a step further. It is now accepted, that even human consciousness has an effect on things in the laboratory as well as on things way beyond the laboratory. Quantum physics proposes that human thoughts have an effect, independent of the presence of the human body.
Some pretty impressive, top-ranking scientists are attempting to explain quantum physics. I've met some of them; some of them are responsible for the provocative movie, "What the Bleep Do We Know?" In October, 2005, I attended the last "Bleep Conference" in Scottsdale, Arizona where I met many of the people responsible for that thought provoking movie.
It seems that whether we're ready or not, we now have at our disposal what remains of classical physics; we have great numbers of students of metaphysics; and we have the first-ever writings about quantum physics and that challenging movie to think about.
To my knowledge, the first "scientific" theories about metaphysics in the modern world, date back to about the 1940's. Scientists scoffed at the very thought of it. The first widely read and, I believe, the first ever best-selling, metaphysical book was one written by Norman Vincent Peale. He called it, "The Power of Positive Thinking," and it may not have been scientific, but it changed everything for millions of people. Today we have a new version, the highly acclaimed, "The Secret," at the top of reading lists.
But it was the computer that really changed everything. It was the computer that enabled theory to become reality. The first computers filled an entire room and they cost a fortune. Remember those?
There's the story of two young men who were employed by the same company when one of those room-sized computers was installed. The installation itself took days, and the first night the computer was finally up and running, the two young men decided to stay after work that night to get some hands-on experience with the new "monster" in the other room. One of them was an agnostic, the other, a typical, curious junior executive. They were both duly impressed with this giant new machine which was supposed to do anything. The agnostic wanted to ask the first question. He typed in, "IS THERE A GOD?" The machine started with a low moan, but over a long period of time it worked up to a very loud noise. Lights began to flash in every direction, and finally, it stopped. A tape started coming out of the printer bay. The tape read, "There is NOW."
If God were ever to have competition, it might be the computer. What it did for science, right away, was to open doors to the limitless. Information, something as simple as a number to be multiplied by two, could be fed into the computer. The computer was pre-programmed to repeat that process over and over and over again, ad infinitum. Because the computer's only mission was to repeat the process, the information finally and always reached such a volume that the process failed! The result was: chaos. Never before had there been a way to carry out an experiment to that extent. The human brain cannot do that.
This is the most significant contribution that computers have made to mankind. They have shown that anything and everything, when tested long enough, will, ultimately, cease to follow the pattern it seems to have established and will erupt into chaos. Chaos is undifferentiated, undirected confusion of the first order. So there is no science. Nothing can really be provedscientifically.
Is it any wonder, then, that scientists and religionists can no longer look down upon each other for lack of proof? The time seems to have come to eat a little humble pie and perhaps to pool our resources. That's what quantum physics is all about. "What the Bleep Do We Know" was a break-through for both communities: science and religion.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 4
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Mavis Mathews only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Mavis Mathews is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-11-16 15:26:29
Interesting article. I would caution against the idea that proof is absolute, which you are strongly suggesting. No proof is absolute, and no reliable scientist in history has ever claimed that proof is absolute. So when something has been proven, then new information comes along to disprove it, it doesn't meant that the original proof was invalid or not useful. It merely means that our understanding has increased.
That's the real secret, and I say that as a fan of "The Secret."
I think you totally misunderstand the role of RELIGION in people's lives. Religion DOES NOT NEED proof. In fact, if there were proof, it would NOT involve religion. Religion is based upon FAITH ~ giving yourself to powers that are beyond your understanding and promises that were made by holy people who received information from OUTSIDE of science and our world.
However, your grasp of Quantum Physics also seems rather weak. You talk about "metaphysics" as if it's an accepted fact. That is probably MORE speculative than RELIGION.
Einstein was back in 1905 and 1915 with theories that transformed our perception of space and time and matter more than any other scientific contribution. Your reference to 1940 being the start of any scientific achievement of substance would certainly do us all a disservice by ignoring more important predecessors. The concept of PHOTONS and the curvature of space certainly transcend any dalliance in what I would call the SUPERNATURAL realms of "meta" physics. These are as unproven and unaccepted as the peyote rituals of Carlos Castaneda.
I think you stoop too low and stretch too far to give "absolute" credibility to some of these ideas that are as far-fetched as witchcraft. Surely, the computer isn't even the equivalent of the HUMAN BRAIN yet, so I would hardly christen it as GOD.
In response to Master C's response to this article.
Although by inception, religion doesn't need proof, as a movement it constantly seeks that proof and some affirmation from science.
This is evidenced by numerous alleged religious phenomena such as sigmata, bleeding/crying icons, images of Christ/Mary/etal on toast, cereal bowls, sides of bldgs, the visitations of same ala Fatima, exorcisms, etc - the list goes on.
People who a priori believe in their version of god and/or minions, will still seek some kind of objective scientific-like proof to substantiate their belief.
That isn't true at all. Ask any minister, pastor, or reverend if they NEED or SEEK proof of God's existence, or the miracles of the Bible and they will tell you emphatically "NO".
I don't know where you get YOUR ideas from. Must make them up.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
