Re: [asa] Quantum physics, measurement problems, other implications?

Hi there,

See my responses interspersed below :)

In Christ,
Christine

"For we walk by faith, not by sight" ~II Corinthians 5:7

Help save the life of a homeless animal--visit www.azrescue.org to find out how.

Recycling a single aluminum can conserves enough energy to power your TV for 3 hours--Reduce, Reuse, Recycle! Learn more at www.cleanup.org

--- On Thu, 11/13/08, Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [asa] Quantum physics, measurement problems, other implications?
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Date: Thursday, November 13, 2008, 8:53 PM
> Heya Christine,
>
> I would echo this answer. Quantum physics is so complex, so
> > counter-intuitive, and so abstract, it is very
> difficult for people like me
> > (who are scientists by training but are not active
> researchers) to
> > understand it, let alone for the non-technical, lay
> audience. It's not even
> > addressed until college, and even then for most
> people, it is an elective
> > course that most do not undertake. It's hard for
> something to be on people's
> > radar screen, if they've never really even heard
> of it. In contrast,
> > although the technical details of evolution are
> certainly difficult, the
> > bsaics are much easier to grasp, it is much more
> tangible (witness the
> > classic "primate to human" sketch), and it
> is taught at a much earlier stage
> > in school (usually high school, though I had my first
> taste in 8th grade).
> > Also, with evolution, it is immediately apparent what
> the implications are
> > ("humans were apes" or "humans came
> from warm, chemical goo") whereas the
> > implications of quantum
> > physics are seemingly much more opaque at first
> glance.
>
>
> I understand that response. But here's the problem I
> have with it.
>
> * The desire/query I have is not to have laymen
> 'understanding quantum
> physics' in any comprehensive sense. Indeed, the
> general theme among QM
> physicists themselves seems to be that QM is not understood
> by them, and
> quite possibly cannot be understood in an ultimate and
> meaningful sense.
> Richard Feynman comes to mind, where he explicitly advises
> his students to
> not attempt 'figuring out' QM, as it will only lead
> to frustration and ruin.
> But the weirdness, non-intuitiveness, and potential
> ramifications don't
> require obscure technical knowledge and math to understand.
> These things
> become apparent with very simple illustrations, such as the
> twin-slit
> experiment, or the delayed choice quantum eraser
> experiment.

Um yeah, all those "simple illustrations" you just mentioned--never heard of them. Quantum physics was never part of my education, save for the conversations I've had w/ my chem. eng. husband and now, the conversations I get to listen in on with ASA :)
>
> * I would humbly suggest that most people who 'believe
> in evolution' or
> claim to understand it - Christian and non-Christian alike
> - typically have
> an abysmal grasp of it. They get 'the gist', and
> usually that's as far as
> they go. But getting that far is apparently judged to be a
> success by the
> standards of science advocates, who seem to primarily care
> about whether
> 'true' or 'false' is checked on surveys
> which ask 'Humanity evolved from
> lower life forms, without any external help from a
> deity.' So why would it
> not be enough to make people aware that the Newtonian world
> they are
> familiar with in day to day life breaks down at (at least)
> the levels which
> QM deals with - and that minds and consciousness seem to
> play a strong and
> embarrassing role in this? I can practically guarantee that
> a high school
> level student would be able to grasp these things if an
> animated
> demonstration were provided. It's 'not on their
> radar screen' in part
> because next to no one - certainly no advocacy groups, even
> broad 'science
> education' advocacy groups - regard this understanding
> as important,
> somehow.

Generally speaking, I would concur that its not considered important in a general science education curriculum, as my own education shows. Likewise, I'm certain that you're assessment of the layman's grasp of evolution (abysmal) is probably about right, thanks in large part of pop culture distortions.

A counter-question for you though...beyond it's philosophical and academic implications, what in quantum physics makes it essential for the general public to know on an everyday basis? Can it contribute to the discussion of national policy, and so better inform voters? Can it contribute to our understanding of disease & health issues (as evolution can)?

Or are you making the argument that quantum physics is important to the general public precisely because it is has philosophical (and theological) implications? If so, I wonder what you assessment of the general public's interest in such matters would be in the first place? It seems to me that (stereotypically) anything philosophical or academic in character is dismissed as useless and boring by John Q. Public, and that in general, our society suffers from an appalling lack of what I like to call "deep and profound discussions/thinking"

>
> * Keep in mind that there's another, alternative view
> as to why these things
> are not discussed with layman audiences: Because the
> results speak to things
> that are philosophically/metaphysically distasteful to many
> or most of the
> scientists involved, and therefore the less people getting
> 'the wrong
> ideas', the better. Kuttner and Rosenblum speak to this
> particularly in
> Quantum Enigma, where they criticize the scientific
> community for acting
> like and insisting that there's nothing fundamentally
> unusual and important
> going on in QM, when they know better. Stapp mostly talks
> about the
> implications, but repeatedly laments that philosophers and
> even scientists
> typically want to go on pretending that QM discoveries
> never happened, and
> that the whole universe is Newtonian all the way down.
> Certainly we can at
> once agree that the ramifications of QM experiments and
> studies are deep and
> major - yet at the same time, hardly any person or group
> who harps on the
> importance of science education considers this knowledge
> important. Indeed,
> there's some indication that some consider public
> awareness to this
> undesirable, because then who knows what ideas they'll
> all come up with.

Interesting potential bias. Though, that can and should be counteracted by Christians in science, such as Polkinghorne. But here's an alternative possibility...you have X number of years for each child in school, to teach them Y number of things by the time they leave. Presumably, classical physics (and chemistry too) must be taught and understood before you can teach quantum physics, yes? Given that basic physics and chemistry are only taught for the first time in high school (and often retaught in college to those that need remedial help and/or need prerequisites), isn't it more likely that teachers and professors don't teach it simply because they run out of time? Where would you place it in the curriculum if you had the choice, and what would you take out? Or are you arguing instead that more of an effort should be made (a la via popular books and newspapers, etc.) to educate the general public about quantum physics outside of the formal school
 setting?

>
> * I want to stress that I'm not talking about the
> implications and even
> benefits of QM for Christian thought - I think that's a
> worthwhile subject,
> but disconnected from what I'm talking about. I'm
> talking about the
> bare-bones communication of A) The apparent lack of
> classical mechanical
> rules holding at the QM level, at least, B) The strongly
> implied tie between
> consciousness and QM, and C) The important implications
> this has for just
> about any person's worldview, however mysterious the
> 'ultimate truth' of the
> matter is.

To my previous responses, I would also add regarding B & C both of those contain a high degree of uncertainty. Uncertainty is notoriously hard to convey to the general public in a manner that accurately does justice to what science really is (witness the distortion of "uncertainty" in the debate surrounding climate change), and so I can sympathize with those who might be hesitant to try to teach it more broadly. Not to say that this is a good thing...I think it's sad that as a larger society, we can't engage these issues more effectively and more in-depth...but I think before you can do so responsibly, the broader public needs to have a better grasp of the basic scientific method and what science really is (and isn't).

>
> Or to put it again: If we (and by that I mean mostly
> Christians interested
> in science, particularly TE Christians) consider it so
> important for fellow
> Christians and non-Christians to know and accept evolution
> because of what
> it says about our world - then shouldn't we be just as
> concerned that those
> same people know and accept the weird results of QM, and
> what THAT says
> about our world? Once more, I won't accept that these
> things 'just can't be
> taught easily because they're too complicated'. Not
> when the bar is as low
> as it is for teaching people about evolution - and not when
> a crackpot movie
> like 'What the Bleep Do We Know?' is capable of
> explaining the weirdness of
> the twin-slit experiment, and some of its potential
> implications, extremely
> well just by using some funny animation.

Regarding the latter--sounds interesting, but never heard of it; so I can't speak to that. Regarding the former...I think you have perhaps identified an inconsistency in the introduction of a sort of an "evolutionary litmus test"...but at the same time, per my earlier comments, I think the evolution debate is more than just about evolution. It's about the meaning of science, and the way science is done, and how science can/should relate to Scripture. All of these things are being played out and debated through the lens of evolution, and until the Christian community knows how to better address these underlying issues, I'm not sure that trying to start a new discussion over the role and implications of quantum physics would be helpful. These same issues would simply ignite an old controversy through the lens of a new scientific topic.

As an aside, speaking of Scriptures...I think the other reason why evolution in particular is the lightning rod, as opposed to quantum physics, is that evolution more directly challenges (at least superficially) the Bible's authority. God's creation of the world and the animals, and especially His creation of man, are addressed very specifically in Genesis. The nature of free will and consciousness and the soul are not. Their are multiple terms floating around throughout the Bible like "soul" and "spirit" and "living being" and "breath of God" and "image of God", but there is no real theological discourse (let alone conclusive statement) about how all these things are defined and what they mean. Given the ambiguousness of these concepts relative to the stories told in Genesis, I think it's easy to see (and not unjustifiable) why evolution is so prominent relative to the issues that quantum physics raises.

>
> This could lead in to some other questions that I think are
> at least worth
> talking about.
>
> Are we concerned that people in general, and Christians in
> particular, are
> aware of and accept evolution solely because of the
> perceived truth of the
> matter and the importance of people understanding what
> their world is really
> like? Or is it that, in however large or small part,
> we're simply
> embarrassed by the lack of acceptance, because that's
> what our (many times,
> Christian-hostile) communities demand of its members in
> order to be viewed
> respectfully? Is our concern really that people truly
> understand scientific
> questions on an intellectual level - or are we really after
> Christians
> simply submitting to intellectual authority? Is the
> possibility for
> Christians to learn about touchy, weird fundamentals like
> QM - issues that
> have no clear answers, and may never have such answers - on
> some level
> perceived as threatening, especially if they're left
> free to make up their
> own minds on these subjects?
>

To conclude, I don't think that we're encouraging simple submission to intellectual authority (in fact, I'd discourage that!), but I do think that what we're after is teaching people the basics of science (including evolution, but not quantum physics) as is represented by the current academic consensus, and then letting people pursue or not pursue the rest as suits their interests and talents. If a Christian (or anyone for that matter) wants to learn more about quantum physics just out of curiosity or because they want to ponder its philosophical implications--then hey, more power to them. But the vast majority of people, I think, simply don't want to. And that's OK. What's not OK is if people do not understand the basics of science, and particularly for those in the faith community, I think that yes, it is embarrassing when people are not only ignorant of it, but actively fight against it.

> I'll give my own take on this later, I think I've
> written enough for now. It
> came to me after I sat down and read the thoughts of
> several apparently
> mainstream scientists' views on QM, their lamentations
> (specifically the
> lamentations of one in particular, in a private
> conversation), and thought
> about it in comparison to the evolution debate. Who knows -
> maybe others
> have a similar view here.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 13 23:01:41 2008