Neighbour Used Stepladders To Gain Entry...
Home & Garden5 mins ago
Intelligently Designed Universe?
Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it’s remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren’t just the way they are, we couldn’t be here at all. The sun couldn’t be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here.
Or what?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Khandro //Quantum Mechanics has done no such thing.//
You clearly don't understand Quantum Mechanics then.
Particles are observed to randomly appear from the void and then disappear again. The position and momentum of particles is defined by probabilities. The more closely you define the position, the less you can know about their momentum and vice versa.
The decay of radioactive nuclei is not driven by a cause but by a probablity of decay. The position of an electron in its orbit around the nucleus is defined by a probability. It is simultaneously everywhere but more probable in some locations.
The energy at any point in space is a probability. Given an infinite void beyond the bounds of time, a whole universe can just appear from nothing. Its relatively rare compared to there being nothing but the probability is not zero. Hence the Universe exists. It's that simple. No gods required.
Khandro //A bit of cut & pasting & then forming your own conclusions doesn't cut it I'm afraid.//
I didn't cut and paste anything and those things I wrote are thoroughly established facts. Your inability to comprehend it does not mean it is wrong.
Einstein could understand it either, so don't feel too bad.
I actually do have a working comprehension of QM.
Kardashev //Richard Feynman famously said: "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechenics!"//
I'm well aware of Feynman's quip. For him to say that, he would have to think he understood QM. So does that make his statement wrong or right?
The most remarkable devices in existence today were designed by people who definitley understand QM.
It may just be am imprecison of language, but I am not sure I quite agree with *how* beso expresses things. Although, that said, it's far closer to the nature of QM than any of the rubbish in Khandro's 11:09 1.10.23 comment.
As a specific example, what does it mean to "observe particles that appear and disappear"? I presume that this is a reference to virtual particles. However, almost by definition, if they've disappeared then you didn't actually observe them. It's possible to infer their effects (see, eg, the Casimir effect) but there is another equally valid way to interpret what's going on without any reference to virtual particles at all, and it's better to understand these as a handy calculational tool than an actual manifestation of reality.
I should point out, though, that this is a highly technical "disagreement", and may not even be that much of a disagreement at all. As I say, Khandro's view of QM is filled with nonsense from start to finish.
