The Boundaries of Reality
18 Sep '07 00:443 editsHere is another excerpt which I believe many here will find worthy of discussion. This is from Dr. Charles Missler's book, Prophecy 20/20, chapter 2, "The Boundaries of Our Reality."
Enjoy...
-----------------------------------------------------
"One of the most significant discoveries of twentieth-century science is that the universe is finite. Furthermore, it had a beginning. That fact has led to the various conjectures collectively known as the Big Bang Theory.
"We know from the laws of thermodynamics that energy travels from hot to cold. All processes in the universe inevitably contribute the losses from their inefficiencies to the ambient temperature. If the universe was infinite, the present ambient temperature would be uniform. It is not; therefore, it had a beginning, and it will ultimately suffer a "heat death" when the ambient temperature is uniform and no more heat transfers can occur.
"The finiteness of our macrocosm is one of the sobering realities of modern astrophysics. Mankind, therefore, finds itself trapped within the finite interval between the "singularity" that began it all and a finite termination.
"In the microcosmic domain, there also appears to be an even more astonishing boundary to smallness. Perhaps even more dramatic, and paradoxical in its consequences, has been the discovery of the "finiteness" of the microcosm, the advent of quantum physics.
"We easily imagine that if we take a length of something and divide it in half, we can then take the remainder and divide that in half again. We naturally assume that, conceptually, at least, we could do that ad infinitum. Whatever we have left we assume can be divided again. But it turns out that isn't so. When we get down to 10 to the -33 centimeters it cannot be further divided. (Physicists call that the Planck length.) Dividing it further causes it to "lose locality." It turns out that length - and virtually every other measure we explore - is quantized. It is made up of indivisible units, or quanta. That's why they call the study of all this quantum physics.
"This turns out to be true for our three spatial dimensions: mass, energy, and even time itself. There is no briefer periord than 10 to the -43 seconds.
"The philosophical implications of quantum theory are profoundly disturbing. Among the startling discoveries made by quantum physicists is that if you break matter - or energy or time - into smaller and smaller pieces, you eventually reach a point where those pieces (electrons, protons, etc.) no longer possess the traits of objects. Although they can sometimes behave as if they were compact little particles, physicists have found that they literally possess no dimension.
"Another observation, even by "secular" scientists, is that the more we understand the universe, the more it appears as if it were specifically designed for man. There are literally hundreds of dimensions or ratios that, if varied even slightly, would make life impossible. If the earth were a little closer - or a little more distant - from the sun, it would be too hot or too cold to support life. If it rotated a little faster - or a little slower - life would be impossible. This applies to cosmological factors in our solar system, as well as key ratios in subatomic particles.
"If the gravity of the earth at its surface were weaker, we would not have an adequate atmosphere; if it were stronger, our atmosphere would contain too much ammonia.
"If the electromagnetic coupling constant were either weaker or stronger, molecules for life would cease to exist. As physicists examine the strong nuclear force coupling constant, it turns out that if it were only slightly weaker, multiproton nuclei would not hold together and hydrogen would be the only element in the universe. The supply of various life-essential elements heavier than iron would be insufficient. If they were only slightly stronger, nuclear particles would tend to bond together more frequently and more firmly, and hydrogen would be rare in the universe. Either way, with less than a 1 percent change, life would be impossible.
"If the weak nuclear force coupling constant were increased, there would be no helium or heavy elements; if it were increased, there would be an overabundance of heavy elements.
"A June 2005 article in Scientific American on the inconstancy of constants has even suggested that our physical universe is but a shadow of a larger reality - something that the Bible has maintained all along.
"A further realization is that our position in the universe appears to have been tailored for the purpose of discovery: its position in the galaxy, the proportions of the moon and the sun to permit solar eclipses, the uniqueness of the visible spectrum, and dozens of other factors that imply teleology: a heuristic purpose in the overall design.
"Another discovery of the physicists is that a subatomic particle, such as an electron, can manifest itself as either a particle or a wave. If you shoot an electron at a television screen that has been turned off, a tiny point of light will appear when it strikes the phosphorescent chemicals that coat the glass. The single point of impact that the electron leaves on the screen clearly reveals that particle-like side of its nature.
"But that is not the only form the electron can assume. It can also dissolve into a blurry cloud of energy and behave as if it were a wave, spread out over space. When an electron manifests itself as a wave it can do things no particle can. If it is fired at a barrier in which two slits have been cut, it can go through both slits simultaneously. When wavelike electrons collide with each other they even create interference patterns.
"It is interesting that in 1906, J. J. Thomson received the Nobel Prize for proving that electrons are particles. In 1937, he saw his son awarded the Nobel Prize for proving that electrons are waves. Both father and son were correct. From then on, the evidence for the wave/particle duality has become overwhelming. This chameleon-like ability is common to all subatomic particles. Called quanta, they manifest themselves either as particles or waves. What makes them even more astonishing is that there is compelling evidence that the only time quanta ever manifest as particles is when we are looking at them.
"The Danish physicist Niels Bohr (1885-1962) stated, "Anyone who isn't shocked by quantum physics has not understood it." Bohr pointed out that if subatomic particles only come into existence in the presence of an observer, then it is also meaningless to speak of a particle's properties and characteristics as existing before they are observed. But if the act of observation actually helps create such properties, what does that imply about the future of science?
"It gets worse. Some subatomic processes result in the creation of a pair of particles with identical or closely related properties. Quantum physics predicts that attempts to measure complementary characteristics on the pair - even when traveling in opposite directions - would always be frustrated. Such strange behavior would imply that they would have to be interconnected in some way so as to be instantaneously in communication with each other.
"One physicist who was deeply troubled by Bohr's assertions was Albert Einstein. Despite the role Einstein had played in the founding of quantum theory, he was not pleased with the course the fledgling science had taken. In 1935 Einstein and his colleagues Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen published their now famous paper, "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?"
"The problem, according to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, is that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. The instantaneous communication implied by the prevailing view of quantum physics would be tantamount to breaking the time barrier and would open the door to all kinds of unacceptable paradoxes. Einstein and his colleagues were convinced that no "reasonable definition" of reality would permit such faster-than-light interconnections to exist and, therefore, Bohr had to be wrong. Their argument is now known as the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, or EPR paradox for short.
"Bohr remained unperturbed by Einstein's argument. Rather than believing that some kind of faster-than-light communication was taking place, he offered another explanation. If sub-atomic particles do not exist until they are observed, then one could no longer think of them as independent "things." Thus Einstein was basing his argument on an error when he viewed twin particles as separate. They were but part of an indivisible system, and it was meaningless to think of them otherwise.
"In time, most physicists sided with Bohr and became content that his interpretation was correct. One factor that contributed to Bohr's following was that, because quantum physics had proved so spectacularly successful in predicting phenomena, few physicists were willing to even consider the possibility that it might be faulty in some way. Today, entire industries of lasers, microelectronics, and computers have emerged on the reliability of the predictions of quantum physics. The popular Caltech physicist Richard Feynman has summed up this paradox well: "I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics . . . In fact, it is often stated that of all the theories proposed in this century, the silliest is quantum theory. Some say that the only thing that quantum theory has going for it, in fact, is that it is unquestionably correct."
Enjoy...
-----------------------------------------------------
"One of the most significant discoveries of twentieth-century science is that the universe is finite. Furthermore, it had a beginning. That fact has led to the various conjectures collectively known as the Big Bang Theory.
"We know from the laws of thermodynamics that energy travels from hot to cold. All processes in the universe inevitably contribute the losses from their inefficiencies to the ambient temperature. If the universe was infinite, the present ambient temperature would be uniform. It is not; therefore, it had a beginning, and it will ultimately suffer a "heat death" when the ambient temperature is uniform and no more heat transfers can occur.
"The finiteness of our macrocosm is one of the sobering realities of modern astrophysics. Mankind, therefore, finds itself trapped within the finite interval between the "singularity" that began it all and a finite termination.
"In the microcosmic domain, there also appears to be an even more astonishing boundary to smallness. Perhaps even more dramatic, and paradoxical in its consequences, has been the discovery of the "finiteness" of the microcosm, the advent of quantum physics.
"We easily imagine that if we take a length of something and divide it in half, we can then take the remainder and divide that in half again. We naturally assume that, conceptually, at least, we could do that ad infinitum. Whatever we have left we assume can be divided again. But it turns out that isn't so. When we get down to 10 to the -33 centimeters it cannot be further divided. (Physicists call that the Planck length.) Dividing it further causes it to "lose locality." It turns out that length - and virtually every other measure we explore - is quantized. It is made up of indivisible units, or quanta. That's why they call the study of all this quantum physics.
"This turns out to be true for our three spatial dimensions: mass, energy, and even time itself. There is no briefer periord than 10 to the -43 seconds.
"The philosophical implications of quantum theory are profoundly disturbing. Among the startling discoveries made by quantum physicists is that if you break matter - or energy or time - into smaller and smaller pieces, you eventually reach a point where those pieces (electrons, protons, etc.) no longer possess the traits of objects. Although they can sometimes behave as if they were compact little particles, physicists have found that they literally possess no dimension.
"Another observation, even by "secular" scientists, is that the more we understand the universe, the more it appears as if it were specifically designed for man. There are literally hundreds of dimensions or ratios that, if varied even slightly, would make life impossible. If the earth were a little closer - or a little more distant - from the sun, it would be too hot or too cold to support life. If it rotated a little faster - or a little slower - life would be impossible. This applies to cosmological factors in our solar system, as well as key ratios in subatomic particles.
"If the gravity of the earth at its surface were weaker, we would not have an adequate atmosphere; if it were stronger, our atmosphere would contain too much ammonia.
"If the electromagnetic coupling constant were either weaker or stronger, molecules for life would cease to exist. As physicists examine the strong nuclear force coupling constant, it turns out that if it were only slightly weaker, multiproton nuclei would not hold together and hydrogen would be the only element in the universe. The supply of various life-essential elements heavier than iron would be insufficient. If they were only slightly stronger, nuclear particles would tend to bond together more frequently and more firmly, and hydrogen would be rare in the universe. Either way, with less than a 1 percent change, life would be impossible.
"If the weak nuclear force coupling constant were increased, there would be no helium or heavy elements; if it were increased, there would be an overabundance of heavy elements.
"A June 2005 article in Scientific American on the inconstancy of constants has even suggested that our physical universe is but a shadow of a larger reality - something that the Bible has maintained all along.
"A further realization is that our position in the universe appears to have been tailored for the purpose of discovery: its position in the galaxy, the proportions of the moon and the sun to permit solar eclipses, the uniqueness of the visible spectrum, and dozens of other factors that imply teleology: a heuristic purpose in the overall design.
"Another discovery of the physicists is that a subatomic particle, such as an electron, can manifest itself as either a particle or a wave. If you shoot an electron at a television screen that has been turned off, a tiny point of light will appear when it strikes the phosphorescent chemicals that coat the glass. The single point of impact that the electron leaves on the screen clearly reveals that particle-like side of its nature.
"But that is not the only form the electron can assume. It can also dissolve into a blurry cloud of energy and behave as if it were a wave, spread out over space. When an electron manifests itself as a wave it can do things no particle can. If it is fired at a barrier in which two slits have been cut, it can go through both slits simultaneously. When wavelike electrons collide with each other they even create interference patterns.
"It is interesting that in 1906, J. J. Thomson received the Nobel Prize for proving that electrons are particles. In 1937, he saw his son awarded the Nobel Prize for proving that electrons are waves. Both father and son were correct. From then on, the evidence for the wave/particle duality has become overwhelming. This chameleon-like ability is common to all subatomic particles. Called quanta, they manifest themselves either as particles or waves. What makes them even more astonishing is that there is compelling evidence that the only time quanta ever manifest as particles is when we are looking at them.
"The Danish physicist Niels Bohr (1885-1962) stated, "Anyone who isn't shocked by quantum physics has not understood it." Bohr pointed out that if subatomic particles only come into existence in the presence of an observer, then it is also meaningless to speak of a particle's properties and characteristics as existing before they are observed. But if the act of observation actually helps create such properties, what does that imply about the future of science?
"It gets worse. Some subatomic processes result in the creation of a pair of particles with identical or closely related properties. Quantum physics predicts that attempts to measure complementary characteristics on the pair - even when traveling in opposite directions - would always be frustrated. Such strange behavior would imply that they would have to be interconnected in some way so as to be instantaneously in communication with each other.
"One physicist who was deeply troubled by Bohr's assertions was Albert Einstein. Despite the role Einstein had played in the founding of quantum theory, he was not pleased with the course the fledgling science had taken. In 1935 Einstein and his colleagues Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen published their now famous paper, "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?"
"The problem, according to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, is that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. The instantaneous communication implied by the prevailing view of quantum physics would be tantamount to breaking the time barrier and would open the door to all kinds of unacceptable paradoxes. Einstein and his colleagues were convinced that no "reasonable definition" of reality would permit such faster-than-light interconnections to exist and, therefore, Bohr had to be wrong. Their argument is now known as the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, or EPR paradox for short.
"Bohr remained unperturbed by Einstein's argument. Rather than believing that some kind of faster-than-light communication was taking place, he offered another explanation. If sub-atomic particles do not exist until they are observed, then one could no longer think of them as independent "things." Thus Einstein was basing his argument on an error when he viewed twin particles as separate. They were but part of an indivisible system, and it was meaningless to think of them otherwise.
"In time, most physicists sided with Bohr and became content that his interpretation was correct. One factor that contributed to Bohr's following was that, because quantum physics had proved so spectacularly successful in predicting phenomena, few physicists were willing to even consider the possibility that it might be faulty in some way. Today, entire industries of lasers, microelectronics, and computers have emerged on the reliability of the predictions of quantum physics. The popular Caltech physicist Richard Feynman has summed up this paradox well: "I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics . . . In fact, it is often stated that of all the theories proposed in this century, the silliest is quantum theory. Some say that the only thing that quantum theory has going for it, in fact, is that it is unquestionably correct."
Back to Top