Quantum Mechanics: Is It Anti-Creationism?

Sir Isaac Newton (1642/3–1727) who is one of most well-known scientists of all time, who wrote more about the Bible than science, he was a creationist who discovered the laws of motion, gravity, and cooling. He invented the reflecting telescope and was the co-inventor of calculus. However, there were some problems that classical physics invented by Newton could not explain.

For example, an experiment which was conducted by Michelson and Morley (1838–1923)  showed conclusively that there was no difference in the measured speed of light regardless of direction. Then along comes Quantum mechanics. Einstein’s theory of special relativity was able to solve this problem. In other example, classical physics prediction of black body that acted like a ‘vibrator’ with certain modes, which had different frequencies with the same amount of energy proportional to temperature.

It worked well for low frequencies, but predicted that the radiation would be more and more intense at higher frequencies, working its way towards infinite energy which is of course impossible! Max Planck (1858–1947) came along and he was able to solved this faulty prediction. He proposed that they could have only discrete amounts of energy proportional to the frequency. A formula known as Planck’s constant (E = hν).

Physicist Louis-Victor-Pierre-Raymond, 7th duc de Broglie discovered another important concept of quantum mechanics. Just as energy of vibrators and electromagnetic radiation was quantized into discrete packets with particle-like properties, de Broglie proposed that all moving particles had an associated wave-like nature. This discovery lead to the invention of electron microscopes where smaller objects could be observed that previously were not able to be seen with optical microscopes.

There have been concerns by Christians about Quantum Mechanics, such as New Agers coming up with mystical, and moral-relativistic views about it and have form special groups to combat QM as a whole. However, Einstein and Schrödinger didn’t like the mysticism of a supposed “observer collapses the wavefunction”.  So is Quantum mechanics anti-creationism? Answer: No! The evidence through the use of operational science has enabled scientists to solved problems within classic physics. It didn’t overturn it where it was rendered totally useless. In fact its concepts are still used today.

Quantum mechanics is operational science which doesn’t deal with explanations about origins unlike the author himself deciding to inject his own interpretation by giving another theory or explanation the credit. Quantum mechanics really works, and has been strongly supported by verification through experiment. There is no logical reason to oppose it. This is not like the ever-growing complexities as a result of numerous falsifications in the explanation of evolution, in fact it’s quite different. Operational science in itself is not anti-creationism, instead it’s a tool to gain knowledge. Quantum mechanics is a great field for Christians who are interested in physics and would like to become scientists in their own right in this area giving God all the glory!

Advertisements

15 thoughts on “Quantum Mechanics: Is It Anti-Creationism?

  1. . . . . . . . . . . . . Quantum Mechanics: Is It Anti-Creationism?

    Soooo what difference does it make whether or not quantum mechanics is compatible with creationism?

    The only apparent difference is that creationists then don’t have to lie about it as much as they do about biology and cosmology,

    However, Michael may have to temper his enthusiasm upon realizing that QM does provide a naturalistic explanation for phenomena that creationists claim could only be done directly by God—Creation of matter from nothing. They’re called quantum vacuum fluctuations, and they are observable. For example, the Casimir Effect exerts a physical force that pushes two closely spaced plates together. This occurs because more matter is created outside the plates than between them. It happens all the time, and can be predicted and physically measured.

    Michael may therefore wish to think through his unquestioning endorsement of quantum mechanics. .

  2. Michael thinks that Isaac Newton was a creationist. This displays his ignorance not only of science but of history and religion. Historians agree that Newton was only a step away from the deism of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and John Locke. Newton did not believe in the divinity of Christ, or in an immortal soul. Newton was certainly no literalist as to the Bible; he believed that it could only be interpreted from hidden codes that he spent decades to develop.

    For example, an experiment which was conducted by Michelson and Morley (1838–1923) showed conclusively that there was no difference in the measured speed of light regardless of direction. Then along comes Quantum mechanics. Einstein’s theory of special relativity was able to solve this problem.

    Seriously, Michael, how do you come up with all this dreck?? Michelson & Morley’s ether experiments have no connection whatever to quantum mechanics. Nothing. And QM has no connection with relativity—In fact, the greatest paradox in physics today is that quantum mechanics and relativity are fundamentally incompatible with each other.

    In other [sic] example, classical physics prediction [sic] of black body that acted like a ‘vibrator’ with certain modes, which had different frequencies with the same amount of energy proportional to temperature…. [Planck] proposed that they could have only discrete amounts of energy proportional to the frequency. A formula known as Planck’s constant (E = hν) [sic]

    Guess what, Michael? Classical physics had always treated black bodies as “vibrators.” (Actual scientists call them “oscillators.”) Contrary to your statement, nothing at all changed in this regard—except that the oscillation frequencies are constrained to discrete values.

    The modes at different frequencies do not have the same energy. Read the Planck equation again. And the energy of a particular frequency does not depend on temperature—Do you see any term for temperature in the Planck equation that you yourself set out a sentence later? This is truly morbid stupidity.

    Also, there is nothing in Placnk’s formula which requires discrete energy levels; The discreteness comes from the configuration of a particular system, not from the math. The equation itself allows any energy level and any frequency. Michael is as ignorant in mathematics as in everything else; he can’t even read a simple equation correctly.

    Given Michael’s many obvious mistakes of fact in history, physics, and even theology in this post, why should anyone trust anything else he proposes?

    But he does remain true to the creationist philosophy that every fact must be bent or broken to fit their worldview. We call this a reckless disregard for truth.. It’s only one of the reasons that science does not admit creationism to its table.

  3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .NEWS FLASH

    A new journal hopes to promote accurate understanding and comprehensive teaching of evolutionary theory to a wide audience: Evolution Education & Outreach.

    Michael could certainly use this material, although he may be in doubt as to whether he’s holding it right side up or upside down.

    The publisher, Springer, is generously making it freely available until 31 December. (I’ve heard it is also available in a plain brown wrapper to avoid embarrassing creationists :-)

  4. Olorin: “In fact, the greatest paradox in physics today is that quantum mechanics and relativity are fundamentally incompatible with each other.”

    Although people are working hard on this, by doing actual research, i.e. WORK. I just ordered a book reviewing the subject of Quantum Gravity, discussing the state of play in 2009. Interesting, as things are very much in flux in that topic.

    Michael, when are you going to do some actual WORK instead of the copy-and-paste effort that is this blog ?

  5. Hmm. Off-hand, I can think of Brian Green’s new book The Hidden Reality (2011). Others that I am familiar with are pre-2009: Green’s The Elegant Universe, Lisa Randall’s Warped Passages, and Lee Smolin’s Three Roads to Quantum gravity. Those are all books for lay audiences. Is there another one you had in mind?

  6. Ah so desuka. I see it is on quite a reduced price, until the end of the year.

    I scanned the reviews of the (full price) edition on Amazon. One described the technical level in terms of Wheeler’s “Gravitation.” I read Wheeler,years ago, and a (very heavy!) copy still resides on my bookshelf.

    Since “Approaches” is more than a year old, I can get it through interlibrary loan Wouldn’t be able to go very deep in a 3-week loan period, but it would be interesting to see how similar or how different the approaches are with respect to each other, in terms of basic concepts and the math tools employed.

  7. I personally think you would have to be an idiot to believe in evolution. There is not even an ounce of evidence to promote the THEORY of evolution. Creation is not a theory you idiots. Whether you believe in intelligent design or evolution you still believe in creation you hypocrites. Evolution is studied and treated like a religion by the very people who claim to have no religious beliefs. Evolutionist believe that nature unconsciously created itself out of nothing and then began to make other creations by some weird once in a lifetime freak occurrence like Magic. So by the logic of evolutionists, if I throw one thousand pennies up in the air there is a good “chance” that the pennies could hit the ground and line themselves up to spell “happy birthday” by accident. Seriously. Evolutionists don’t even believe their own nonsense because they never fully cover why they believe in freak chance other than they just don’t believe in God. Petty argument

  8. @creationism:

    One does not ‘believe’ in evolution. Science is not about belief.
    Therefore, scientists are not idiots (according to your reasoning).

    Personally, I think people who shout a lot are idiots.

  9. Creation is not a theory you idiots.

    This is the only thing in his entire comment that “creationism” got right.

    Creationism is not a theory of anything. It is pure, unadulterated hogswallop, with no support whatever in any theory of science or of theology.

  10. That was very enlightening, I always knew that Newton was a creationist.
    Altough I think that we should not believe in this quantum thing, because it just doesn’t seems right.

    Everything is wave and also particle? It’s just another materialist theory. Materials are being made of atoms and atoms forms waves, but thats all? Far from it. There is also the Holy Spirit, I can feel it’s presense.

    And what is with the dead, and at the same time alive cat. Blasphemy, I say, the work of the devil. God either take his creature lives or leave them to live for purpose.

    Also Einsteins Relativistic Quantum Theory, the one with the speed of light is proven false by CERN experiments. There is no maximum limit to the speed of light as God himself is boundless and limitless.

    “Creation of matter from nothing.”
    Only God can do such thing, you ridiculous f*ck. What seems to be this quantum magic for the incompetent science pricks is actually God creating new things. I have a very strong feeling about this, I think I somehow can sense it. God creating many things, working 24 hour a day (even at night when everyone in the Earth is sleeping), and He is defending our planet from asteorids.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s