Does nature have a foreknowledge of observer’s motions and actions - Scientific proof of God based on quantum phenomena

[joigus]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

 

@lidal

I looked for a (mathematical) response to this mathematical post from Joigus.

But I could not find one.

 

Joigus' proposition is mathematically sound and intriguing.
I had not heard of it before so +1 for bringing it to my attention.

 

Very similar arguments (the fact that you can add an arbitrary 4-momentum to a physical 4-momentum without changing its on-shell character) appears in theorems in QFT like,

Soft boson theorems (soft pion theorems first historical argument)

Ward-Takahashi identities

Definition of Feynman's propagator: integral extended to all momenta, including off-shell:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propagator#Scalar_propagator

Take a look at this scalar propagator. It's an integral to the whole momentum space.

Edit: More info for you, @studiot. Off-shell amplitudes in the propagator have to do with internal legs in Feynman diagrams. The amplitude for a particle to be created at one point and annihilated at another. The soft-boson idea is to do with low-energy (virtual) bosons that escape to infinity (external legs in Feynman diagrams). Another bundle of key words for it is "infrared divergences". When you calculate the cross section in, e.g., QED, even after you renormalise charge, mass, etc., it still has infinities due to arbitrarily low-energy ("soft") photons going off in all directions. You must do a cut off to remove those photons you will never detect on account of your detectors having an effective energy threshold (they can't detect arbitrarily "soft" photons escaping to infinity).

Edited July 25, 2020 by joigus
Addition

[Strange]

2 hours ago, lidal said:

Can we have tens of thousands of theories about one phenomenon in physics ? No. We can have only one theory.

We probably can't have tens of thousands of theories, but we can certainly have more than one.

We have two theories of gravity (Newtonian and GR). Both have their place.

We have two theories related to electromagnetism (classical waves and quantum theory). Both have their place.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, lidal said:

Special relativity is not in extraordinary agreement with experiments and I cited the Silvertooth experiment for this.

What are the error bars on the Silvertooth experiment?

3 hours ago, lidal said:

SRT also has no extraordinary internal consistency. I had the Twin Paradox in mind.  With regard to QM I said: “ The case of QM is a little different”.  I had in mind the fact that I know of no experiment that extraordinarily proves or disproves QM. Neither was I referring to any extraordinary internal consistency/inconsistency of QM. All I was saying was that my new theory is much more explanatory than QM, for example on the “ Which Way” and quantum erasure experiment.

Ultimately SR is math, and if you can show that algebra isn’t internally consistent, you could make some real noise.

 

3 hours ago, lidal said:

CMBR disproves relativity indirectly because it agrees with the Silvertooth experiment.

You can’t legitimately claim anything agrees with an experiment that was not properly executed. (specifically those error bars)

 

3 hours ago, lidal said:

It was published in Nature journal as an advertisement.

So, not published in the scientific meaning of the word 

 

[lidal]

On Thursday, July 23, 2020 at 5:53 PM, joigus said:

 

The discussion on this thread was rational, constructive and interesting upto some point. I see that that is no more the case now and partly I take the responsibility for this. I suggest that we all calm down and return to the opening topic of the thread which is about a new alternative theory of quantum phenomena.

[joigus]

9 minutes ago, lidal said:

The discussion on this thread was rational, constructive and interesting upto some point. I see that that is no more the case now and partly I take the responsibility for this. I suggest that we all calm down and return to the opening topic of the thread which is about a new alternative theory of quantum phenomena.

Apparently you see some need for calming down. I'm personally at my calmest.

It would be nice if you quoted me with some actual content.

[Bufofrog]

20 minutes ago, lidal said:

The discussion on this thread was rational, constructive and interesting upto some point. I see that that is no more the case now and partly I take the responsibility for this. I suggest that we all calm down and return to the opening topic of the thread which is about a new alternative theory of quantum phenomena.

Returning to the OP.

20 minutes ago, lidal said:

The grand question is: why do quantum phenomena point to God in such overwhelming way ? 

The answer to the this question has been given already in this thread.  In no way does quantum phenomena point to a god or anything supernatural.

Your idea is a belief, which quite different than a theory.

[lidal]

43 minutes ago, joigus said:

Apparently you see some need for calming down. I'm personally at my calmest.

It would be nice if you quoted me with some actual content.

I already saw that you are one of the few calm here. 

32 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Returning to the OP.

The answer to the this question has been given already in this thread.  In no way does quantum phenomena point to a god or anything supernatural.

Your idea is a belief, which quite different than a theory.

I appreciate returning to the OP.

Actually, I proposed it as a new scientific paradigm. So one might say that it is not a scientific theory, that is science as we know it. 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, lidal said:

The discussion on this thread was rational, constructive and interesting upto some point. I see that that is no more the case now and partly I take the responsibility for this. I suggest that we all calm down and return to the opening topic of the thread which is about a new alternative theory of quantum phenomena.

What is your model? You haven’t even gotten that far. 

What predictions can you make? How do we test your “theory”?

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, lidal said:

Actually, I proposed it as a new scientific paradigm. So one might say that it is not a scientific theory, that is science as we know it. 

Then you're missing the point of God and science.

Each has a place and time, and a paradigm shift is only relevant to the observer... 😉

 

Edited July 25, 2020 by dimreepr

[lidal]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

What is your model? You haven’t even gotten that far. 

What predictions can you make? How do we test your “theory”?

With regard to quantum phenomena, my theory does not provide a new model, it is a new scientific paradigm. Let me put it this way. QM is correct as a model, at least with regard to the double-slit experiments, including Which-Way and quantum erasure. The problem with QM is that it is counter-intuitive. The new theory provides intuitive understanding to QM. So, you asked me my model: it is QM itself, for now. But don't think that this is all.

 

[joigus]

14 minutes ago, lidal said:

my theory does not provide a new model,

You keep using that word, "theory".

[swansont]

1 hour ago, lidal said:

With regard to quantum phenomena, my theory does not provide a new model, it is a new scientific paradigm. Let me put it this way. QM is correct as a model, at least with regard to the double-slit experiments, including Which-Way and quantum erasure. The problem with QM is that it is counter-intuitive. The new theory provides intuitive understanding to QM. So, you asked me my model: it is QM itself, for now. But don't think that this is all.

 

It’s not a theory. At best, it’s an interpretation (i.e. how to make sense of quantum physics). But I don’t think it’s even that.

 

[Strange]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

It’s not a theory. At best, it’s an interpretation (i.e. how to make sense of quantum physics). But I don’t think it’s even that.

It is a Universal Interpretation:

Q. Why do single photons form an interference pattern? God sends them to the right place.

Q. Why do like charges repel? God pushes them apart.

Q. Why does light red shift? God stretches the photons.

Q. How do atoms bind to one another in chemical compounds? God holds them together.

Q. Why do sunflowers turn to the Sun? God adjusts them throughout the day.

 

5 hours ago, lidal said:

With regard to quantum phenomena, my theory does not provide a new model, it is a new scientific paradigm. Let me put it this way. QM is correct as a model, at least with regard to the double-slit experiments, including Which-Way and quantum erasure. The problem with QM is that it is counter-intuitive. The new theory provides intuitive understanding to QM. So, you asked me my model: it is QM itself, for now. But don't think that this is all.

Then it fails Occam's Razor: the theory works perfectly well without adding an undetectable "god" that makes no difference to the theory or the results.

[swansont]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

It is a Universal Interpretation:

Q. Why do single photons form an interference pattern? God sends them to the right place.

Q. Why do like charges repel? God pushes them apart.

Q. Why does light red shift? God stretches the photons.

Q. How do atoms bind to one another in chemical compounds? God holds them together.

Q. Why do sunflowers turn to the Sun? God adjusts them throughout the day.

 

Then it fails Occam's Razor: the theory works perfectly well with adding an undetectable "god" that makes no difference to the theory or the results.

Yes. That addendum (God did it) makes it dogma, and removes it from the realm of science.

[Polykephalous]

How about if God created nature for the benefit and pleasure of mankind, a garden of Eden perhaps. By the way, I am totally not religious.

[Markus Hanke]

13 hours ago, lidal said:

The problem with QM is that it is counter-intuitive.

‘Being intuitive’ is not a requirement for models in physics; it’s also not something that can be objectively determined. 

[lidal]

7 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

‘Being intuitive’ is not a requirement for models in physics; it’s also not something that can be objectively determined. 

Models are for precise formulation. But being guided by models alone is like being blind and being guided by others. Our guide decides many things for us. We will be 'blind' and guided by our models. Intuitive understanding is like being able to see far. Models alone are powerless to lead to new insights. Models themselves are discovered through logical and intuitive thinking.

Perhaps failure to understand a phenomenon intuitively may not mean there is no intuitive way to understand it. It only means we could not figure it out.

Just the way I usually think about these.

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, lidal said:

Models are for precise formulation. But being guided by models alone is like being blind and being guided by others. Our guide decides many things for us. We will be 'blind' and guided by our models. Intuitive understanding is like being able to see far. Models alone are powerless to lead to new insights. Models themselves are discovered through logical and intuitive thinking.

Perhaps failure to understand a phenomenon intuitively may not mean there is no intuitive way to understand it. It only means we could not figure it out.

Just the way I usually think about these.

If your intuition is based on "god did it" then that cannot lead you anywhere because your gad can do absolutely anything at all. You would have been able to predict the results of the double slit experiments, etc. simply by an intuition about "what would my god do".

People were led to develop quantum theory by following the evidence, and using their intuition about how mathematics could explain that.

If your intuition is based on a working theory, then you can extend, expand, develop new tests of that theory, etc.

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, lidal said:

Models are for precise formulation. But being guided by models alone is like being blind and being guided by others. Our guide decides many things for us. We will be 'blind' and guided by our models. Intuitive understanding is like being able to see far. Models alone are powerless to lead to new insights. Models themselves are discovered through logical and intuitive thinking.

Perhaps failure to understand a phenomenon intuitively may not mean there is no intuitive way to understand it. It only means we could not figure it out.

Just the way I usually think about these.

It's just that you've got it backwards...

Someone figured it out and then built a model for us to follow and build on...

[joigus]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

If your intuition is based on "god did it" then that cannot lead you anywhere because your gad can do absolutely anything at all. You would have been able to predict the results of the double slit experiments, etc. simply by an intuition about "what would my god do".

People were led to develop quantum theory by following the evidence, and using their intuition about how mathematics could explain that.

If your intuition is based on a working theory, then you can extend, expand, develop new tests of that theory, etc.

Good point. +1 Why did god do it? Many scientists in the past, feeling very uncomfortable about making statements that denied god, chose to phrase the question as,

Why did god choose to make the world like this?

One answer for every question "God did it" is clearly not good enough.

Edited July 26, 2020 by joigus

[iNow]

It’s turtles all the way down. 

[lidal]

21 hours ago, Strange said:

It is a Universal Interpretation:

Q. Why do single photons form an interference pattern? God sends them to the right place.

Q. Why do like charges repel? God pushes them apart.

Q. Why does light red shift? God stretches the photons.

Q. How do atoms bind to one another in chemical compounds? God holds them together.

Q. Why do sunflowers turn to the Sun? God adjusts them through out the day.

The intervention of God in classical phenomena is not as obvious as in quantum phenomena. This is because we use concepts such as 'field' to explain, for example, electrostatic force. It was after I understood quantum phenomena in terms of God's intervention that I realized that God is behind all laws of physics, including classical phenomena. Yes, God pushes two charges apart precisely according to Coloumb's law.

What is the agent that executes Coulomb's laws ? The laws of physics are like human rules and laws that are written down on paper. Those human rules and laws need someone to execute them. Who executes the laws of physics ? How do the charges know the distance between them ? Are they intelligent enough to calculate the force according to Coulomb's law ?

Has any one ever made sense of what 'fields' are ? 

Imagine dropping a stone on a pond. Who solves the differential equations that determine the wave? The watermolecules themselves? The space between them ? God solves the differential equations in real time and move the molecules. So don't throw a stone on a pond for no reason because you are occupying His computational power. But don't worry, He has infinite power. 

 

 

[swansont]

6 hours ago, lidal said:

Models alone are powerless to lead to new insights.

Except for the instances where they have. Special relativity, for example.

 

 

2 minutes ago, lidal said:

 

What is the agent that executes Coulomb's laws ? The laws of physics are like human rules and laws that are written down on paper. Those human rules and laws need someone to execute them. Who executes the laws of physics ? How do the charges know the distance between them ? Are they intelligent enough to calculate the force according to Coulomb's law ?

Virtual photons, in the case of E&M phenomena.

Can you show, starting from “God did it” that the electrostatic force is 1/r^2?

[Strange]

6 hours ago, lidal said:

Models alone are powerless to lead to new insights.

A model led to the discovery of Neptune

A model led to the discovery of antimatter.

A model led to the discovery of neutrinos.

A model led to the discovery of the expanding universe.

A model led to the discovery of dark matter.

Science is driven by experiment and by models.

 

[Markus Hanke]

9 hours ago, lidal said:

God solves the differential equations in real time

So God doesn't play dice, but he punches a calculator?