Einstein (Jesus=e=mc2)
I stumbled across this blog http://decartes-einstein.blogspot.com/ while looking for information on a book I bought and read called Einstein’s Moon. The book was pivotal in shaping my thinking (layman) about quantum physics specifically and science in general. It provided the context for Einstein’s oft-quoted statement that ‘God doesn’t role dice with the universe’. The numerous additional Einstein quotes utilized in the blog, opened a Pandora’s Box of thought connections especially when he refers to Plato/Aristotle. I anticipate it will require a few posts to close the thought loops opened by his references.
A book review on Amazon describes the fundamental discovery resulting in what is now known as Bell’s Theorem. Although little know or publicized it is seen by many as one of the most important discoveries of this century. I will pull from a review of the book on Amazon which describes the results of shooting single photons through two openings and the unexpected result:
“The Quantum Double Slit paradox: Quantum theory teaches that light is ultimately made up of finite and indivisible quanta called photons. Common sense dictates that since a photon is indivisible, a single photon can only pass through one slit at a time. Therefore, the photon must pass through slit A or B and then hit the photographic particle screen. If one blocks slit B and measures the results of the photon passing through slit A, the result should match commonsense and since the photon can only pass through one slit the interference pattern can not form; however, when the results of a very large number of these individual events are collected, the familiar interference pattern appears, as if the photon also passed through slit B. This is where the quantum world departs with logic and common sense. The photon acts like it can be at two places at once. It seems light and electrons can behave both like a particle and wave.”
So there’s really a three step comparison thing going on.
When you fire light through a single opening slit you will observe a pattern on the receiving wall which will be a bright bar opposite the opening slit that will fade as you move away from the source. Basically the majority of the light particles (photons) travel straight to the wall through the slit while lesser amounts come in at an angle through the slit and hit the wall farther from the center.
The next part of this is to add another slit, a little farther from the first one and shine the same light through the two slits. As expected you receive quite a different pattern. As the light passes through the two slits some particles/waves interfere with those arriving through the other slit which creates an interference pattern on the receiving wall. So the light will be prominent directly opposite the two slits but will fade in ‘waves’ as you move away from the sources. To this point all is well and good in the physics universe. Things are behaving as expected.
Here’s the quantum rub: The next step is to reduce the flow of light and try it again with the two slit options. The flow needs to be reduced to a single photon at a time. (which can and has been done) The purpose of this is to eliminate the possibility of interference between the light coming through both of the slits. Since only one photon is going through either slit at a single moment, it cannot run into another one on it’s journey to the other side. What you’d expect is basically the single slit result only side by side. (See schematic at right) Light can pass through either slit so it will converge across from the two openings and fade elsewhere. Since no other particles interfere, each photon has a direct journey to the other side pretty much around the openings. Is this what you get? Uh nope. You get the same interference pattern when you’re flooding the two slits with light!! Yeah. This inexplicable result basically split the world of Physics. Einstein made his famous God/dice statement and Neils Bohr responded “Quit telling God what to do”. Until I began this brief investigation I’d never heard Bohr’s quote and that in itself is something I take seriously. There are reasons we hear what we hear and don't hear what we don't hear. Einstein's has a nice ring to it but the reason I think we hear it is that it's underlying attitude is a desired indoctrination for the masses. It worked well.
David Harrison from the Department of Physics at the University of Toronto states the obvious that, “As you probably already know, Einstein never did accept Quantum Mechanics.” He continued to believe in some type of undiscovered local phenomena (‘hidden variable’) that would explain why the dice rolled the way they did. Bell’s theorem basically proves that not to be the case. The behavior observed is the real deal. This particular double-slit result is explained as “Although each electron arrives at the target at a single place and time, it seems that each has passed through – or somehow felt the presence of both slits at once”. http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/DoubleSlit.shtml
This confirms something I have been thinking in the background for a while now. While Einstein comes across as a stauch believer in God and a champion against atheism, the God he envisions is not one that I recognize. When he meets face to face with the ‘personal side’ of the behaviour of particles he is so shocked he rejects the reality. Why be so surprised? God created the universe so it should be no surprise that it behaves in a 'being-like' way rather than a robotic automaton. Einstein states:
“I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.”
This is a very high sounding and earnest quest to know God. Really? Uh how about Genesis? Uh, how about the New Testament if you'd like to really know what God thinks. When something shows up in the discipline he's spent his life studying, that points directly to God’s hand in the behaviour of every particle, he rejects it out of hand. God said, and matter came into being. God is all and in all etc. And scientists discover at the quantum level that particles behave with a type of intelligence. You’d expect an unhindered welcome at the landslide of corroborating evidence for God creating the universe . . . not. This is the filter I put upon Einstein's supposed quest to know God. He doesn’t even recognize him when he’s staring him in the face
From other Einsteinian quotes I have a pretty good idea of his image of God. I did a detailed review of a book written by Charles Malik, former President of the United Nations General Assembly which is only one of his many accolades. Like Einstein, regardless of his stature in the world, I found his constant bleating regarding Jesus Christ simply a front for a full fledged denial of who he really was/is. Like Einstein's supposed God quest, when you actually take a look under the hood, you see the squirrels are pretty much tuckered out. Alas, reserved for another post.
1 comment:
From one Michael to another...you are on to something. You might appreciate a journey through the work that has consumed a fair portion of my free time during the last four years.
Yes, I too believe Jesus relates to E in the famous equation, and well...go to my blog: http://eucharist-emc2.blogspot.com for more.
God bless you in your search for TRUTH.
Riz
Post a Comment