Time, Eternity, and Quantum Mechanics
Dr. Rob Sheldon, MA Religion Westminster Seminary, PhD Physics
UMd, ©2003
Table of Contents
- A Physics Introduction
- Eternity
- Prayer
- Quantum Mechanics
- Bohr's Dualism
- Bohm's Realism
- Interference
- Personal Truth
- New Physics
- The Problem of Evil & QM
- Prayer & QM
- A Physics Introduction
What is the connection between physics and theology? As physics
more and more turns to questions of knowledge and reality, it
begins to impinge on theological and philosophical questions of
epistemology and metaphysics. Thus we have seen a spate of books
on the impact of QM on reality, or cosmology and human
beginnings. We would like to turn the tables and ask, "what can
physics learn from theology?" For example, what role does the
Trinity play in our interpretation of QM? In this paper we
propose an analogical connection between the two that may
enlighten our understanding of both.
Let us begin with physics. A sequence of ocean waves or ripples
in a pond can be characterized by wavelength (the distance
between wave crests), frequency (how often these crests hit the
beach) and amplitude (height of the waves). Fourier demonstrated
that any strange shaped wave, even if it looked like an elephant
or a freight train, could be made up of many smaller waves of
different frequencies and amplitudes (usually the speed of all
waves is the same, and since wavelength times frequency is the
speed, there is no new information in the wavelengths.) Thus any
wave can be "decomposed" into a big sum of frequencies, a
process known as Fourier analysis, named for the scientist who
proved the theorem in 1807. A good example of this is the
design of pipe organs (or modern electronic keyboards). As
baroque musicians were aware, the right combinations of pipes
(which represent different frequencies) could reconstruct the
sound of trumpets, violins or woodwinds which is how the stops
on an organ got their names. That is, the stops are a Fourier
reconstruction of particular sound wave forms.
Now mathematically, we can say that this Fourier process starts
with, say, an elephant-shaped wave in space-time, a wave we can
take a photograph of, and converts it to a collection of
frequencies in Fourier-space that when plotted might possibly
look like a mouse. That is, we can't take a picture of frequency
space, but we can mathematically represent it with a graph, just
as we could graph the elephant picture. In this way we can view
time-space and frequency-space as equivalent realms connected by
this Fourier process. So mathematicians call this changing from
one space to another a Fourier transform (FT) which can go
either forward from our space to frequency space, or backwards
from frequency to our space.
We cannot overemphasize the importance of the FT. Our ears have
been designed to carry out this process, and our brains analyze
in frequency space. The outer ear collects sound, conducts it
down the ear canal to the ear drum which vibrates. Then the
smallest bones in our body delicately transmit the vibrations
from the eardrum into a peculiar spiral shaped tube, the
cochlea, that starts out wide and narrows down. The cochlea is
lined with little hairs, cilia, that when vibrated, send out
nerve impulses to the brain. Now the low notes of the tuba have
long sound wavelengths, and cannot "fit" into the narrow part of
the cochlea, so that they vibrate hairs at the wide end. The
high notes of the piccolo have short wavelengths, and vibrate
the hairs at the narrow end of the cochlea. Thus the sound waves
are sorted by frequency, and the nerve impulses coming out of
the cochlea become a FT of the sound.
At that point our brain takes over, and analyzes the
frequencies. It is able to identify phonemes and thence words.
It can analyze tones, and decide whether the speaker is a man or
a woman. It can even recognize individuals from among thousands
of speakers. Or in a 100-piece orchestra it can extract the oboe
part. All by analyzing the FT. Finally the brain is able to
carry out the inverse or backward FT and send signals to the
vocal cords that enable us to sing in tune with the rest of the
choir. All of this done so effortlessly we hardly feel like we
are working at all. This is not true of computers,
however.
One hundred years ago elaborate mechanical machines were
constructed such that as a stylus was traced along the outline
of, say, our elephant curve, pins would fall and record the FT
components. When digital computers were invented at the end of
WWII, one of their tasks was calculating FT, which took minutes
of calculations for every second of sound analyzed. Then in 1965
Cooley and Tukey discovered a technique to speed up the
computation of FT using binary arithmetic. Their Fast Fourier
Transform (FFT) took the computational world by storm. Suddenly
computers could calculate FT as fast as the human ear in "real
time". A senior project of mine in 1980 was the implementation
of a FFT on a microcomputer, though because of kbyte memory
limitations we could only handle 1/2 second of sound! Eventually
the utility and importance of this problem led Intel and Texas
Instruments to build specialized "Digital Signal Processor"
(DSP) chips that did nothing but calculate the FFT, and these
chips appear in a wide variety of consumer electronics. Now if
your TV is able to remove "snow" and sharpen the picture, it is
because of a DSP chip. If your walkman can play MP3 music, it
probably has a DSP chip in it. If your computer can respond to
spoken commands, or renders video games with amazing speed, it
probably uses a DSP chip. The power of DSP chips, I repeat, lies
not just in converting sound and images into Fourier space, but
being able to manipulate the image or sound in frequency space
and then converting it back into normal time space.
Having established the importance of the FT, let us concentrate
on several peculiar properties of this transform. If we hear a
rich tone, say, of an oboe, then the FT has many frequencies and
the transform appears "fat". But if we hear a pure, clear tone,
such as a flute, the FT reveals a single frequency, a "skinny"
pulse. Then if we take the pure flute tone and play it for a
very short time, say 1/4 of a second, it becomes very difficult
for us to tell what the note was, and the FT widens to a fat
pulse. This is because a briefly played note can be viewed as a
"boxcar" pulse multiplied by a pure tone, and since the "boxcar"
pulse has lots of higher frequencies in it, they add to the
flute tone and make it fatter. This observation leads us to a
very important law known as Parseval's theorem, that the width
of the pulse in real space multiplied by the width of the pulse
in frequency space must be equal or greater than two pi (2 x
3.1415928...). That is, making the flute play a constant note
for a long time transforms into a very skinny pulse in frequency
space, and conversely, a very short note on the flute becomes a
very wide pulse in frequency space.
- Eternity
We are ready to start the analogical development of theology.
Many controversies in theology hinge on the relationship between
God, who dwells in eternity "where there is no shadow due to
changing" and us humans who live in causal time, at the nexus
between promise and past, in the ephemeral present now. We do
not know the future, we cannot change the past, we live in
rapidly moving present where our decisions make all the
difference. Ethics, causality, life itself is a series of
choices advancing relentlessly upon us like the water in a
river, and leaving behind us the foamy wake of our choices. Yet
God who lives in eternity has no choices, no causality, no
mysteries. All of our life is laid out before him like a book.
He has no questions, no ethical decisions to make. He knows our
future and our past. How then do we connect these two realms?
Does God's knowledge of our future mean that we have any real
choices? Are we predestined to the future God knows? What if
that future is eternal damnation? How does that knowledge
impinge upon our temporal existence? How does causality, which
is so vital to our ethics and responsibility, apply to eternity
where all things are ever-present eternal truths? Can there be
any communication between these realms?
I would suggest that examination of the FT can give us great
insight into these theological conundrums. For when we take an
elephant wave that is barrelling toward us on the beach, and
Fourier Transform it into frequency space, we eliminate time. It
becomes a collection of frequencies frozen in eternity. In an
extreme example, if we take an infinite train of perfect waves,
a pure flute tone, and FT into frequency space it becomes an
infinitely skinny pulse, a spike known to mathematicians as a
"delta function". Conversely, a dramatic spike in our
space-time, say a cliff shaped tidal wave transforms into an
infinite train of frequencies in Fourier space.
Taking this analogy to time, what is infinite in our
spatio-temporal world becomes a single event in eternity, and
likewise an eternal presence in eternity transforms into a
single event in our time. Now we can see how many Biblical
truths can be understood in a new light, for the singular death
of Christ in history becomes an eternal kenosis in eternity. The
Nicene Creed's "eternally begotten Son of God" becomes the baby
squalling in a humble shed in Bethlehem. Or the everlasting
tenacious lovingkindness of God in our time becomes the event of
Creation in eternity. Or the continuous preservation of the
saints in our time is an act, a single decision in eternity. And
conversely the everlasting damnation of souls in eternity
becomes a single temporal decision by a human soul to reject the
Holy Spirit.
- Prayer
But this analogy has further wonders to reveal. For the FT is a
well-defined method to travel between the two realms. This has
tremendous utility, as I alluded to earlier with the human ear
and DSP chips. What then is the theological analogy to the FT
itself? When God, who lives in eternity, wanted to communicate
with us, who live in time, He did so through human speech,
through the prophets and finally by sending His own Son, the
divine word. And when the Son was on the earth, He prayed to the
Father and commanded us also to pray. C.S. Lewis wrote that
although God knows what is in our hearts before we even say it,
yet He waits upon our prayers before He acts. There is something
significant about words, both the divine revelatory word from
heaven and our human words that rise up to heaven. Then I would
say that like the FT, prayer and words are the transform between
time and eternity. Our prayers are significant just as Jesus
himself prayed to the Father. We return to the substance of
prayer later, but first let us look at the usefulness of
prayer.
When our cochlea performs a FT on the sound we hear, we are able
to process the frequencies, identify phonemes, understand
speech, follow a melody, separate conversations, and perform all
sorts of useful functions that were completely impossible in
temporal space. Likewise when we pray, we are able to ask for
things that are absolutely impossible in temporal space--healing
for relatives, safety for journeys, relief from our enemies,
vindication from accusations. And just as our brains are able to
take that analyzed sound wave and match the frequencies with our
vocal cords, so also our prayers enable us to hear God speak, to
choose the right spouse, to find direction for our life, to
answer the skeptic, to get healing for our bodies and relief for
the soul. Thus the ability to transform from time to eternity
and back again is the heart of religion, the essence of
Spiritual power.
It is no wonder then, that Paul says that "we do not know how to
pray as we ought, but the Spirit intercedes for us with sighs
too deep for words. For prayer is seen as the work of the
Spirit. In this way the whole Trinity is involved and indeed
necessary in this process. The Father lives in eternity, in
unsearchable light, the Son lived in history, in our temporal
time, and the Spirit is the communication, the transform between
the two realms. Thus God dwells in both eternity and time. He
both knows our decisions as everlasting constants in eternity,
and his decisions in eternity are the infallible truths we cling
to in our time. There is therefore no conflict between
predestination and free will, for they are both connected by the
FT of the Spirit. And by the same Spirit we are connected to the
unsearchable riches of Christ. Therefore as we proceed with our
explanation of this analogy, it will be helpful to remember
these three roles of the Trinity because it will profoundly
affect our interpretation of physics and quantum
mechanics.
- Quantum Mechanics
All the physics that we have discussed so far was known by 1807,
but a completely unexpected application appeared in the 1920's.
In 1924 deBroglie proposed that particles of matter--protons,
electrons, atoms--all had wavelike properties characterized by a
discrete size (a quantum) discovered by Max Planck in 1900.
Application of Parseval's theorem to these matter waves led
Heisenberg in 1927 to propose a similar relationship for matter,
that the width of the particle position in space-time multiplied
by the width of the particles position in frequency space (or
momentum) was equal or greater than Planck's constant. This
became known as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and was a
foundation stone of quantum mechanics (QM), the basis of Niels
Bohr's interpretation of reality known as "complementarity".
That is, even God cannot know the position and momentum of a
particle with infinite precision.
Why was this important? Isaac Newton had told us that
F=ma, that all matter, m, responds to forces,
F, by accelerating, a. Every action, every
process, everything that happens does so through applied forces.
Now from a mathematical viewpoint, the acceleration is a 2nd
derivative of space-time, and when one takes a derivative, one
loses a "constant of the motion", so that there are 2 constants
of the motion not discovered by this equation. If one wants to
have the entire system determined, then those two constants have
to be supplied from some other source, which in mathematical
jargon are called "initial conditions". What are those initial
conditions? The position and the momentum. And now we see the
problem, for QM says we will never discover both of them
together, we will never know exactly what is going on, nor can
God tell us because He doesn't know either.
Einstein balked at this interpretation, and saw the limitation
not as God's, but as man's. If there is a problem, Einstein
argued, it is not with reality which must be the same whether an
observer is there or not, rather it must be in our abilities to
measure these quantities. The idea that the world is there when
we are not looking is called "naive realism", and Einstein
proposed several thought experiments intended to prove Bohr
wrong. Each time, however, Bohr was able to refute Einstein,
showing that his clever experiments could not violate the
uncertainty principle, that Einstein could not measure both the
position and momentum to better accuracy than Planck's constant.
Einstein went back and worked on the problem some more, finally
in 1935 writing a paper with Podolsky and Rosen demonstrating
the counter-intuitive results of Bohr's theory, entitled "Can a
QM view of reality be considered complete?" At first Bohr had no
answer to Einstein, but then accepted the paper as a true
expression of his theory. Einstein never accepted the
consequences, because they violated the expectations of "naive
realism".
- Bohr's Dualism
If I am permitted to engage in some speculation here, we might
say that Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation of QM corresponds to
Descarte's dualism. This is consistent with what we know of
Bohr's father's views, when he taught at the University there,
so we might suppose that it was deeply influential on the young
Bohr. Descartes argued that both body and spirit inhabit the
same region of space, and yet are fundamentally different. The
methods used to examine the body: MRI, dissection, vivisection,
etc, are mutually incompatible with the methods that examine the
spirit: interviews, interrogation, testimonies. We might even
suggest that the more intensely we examine the body with
dissection, pathology slides, or electron microscopes, the more
we destroy any knowledge of the spirit.
Contrast this view with another popular view of the mind/body
problem, that of materialism or functionalism. A functionalist
would suggest that the mind or spirit were just the brain states
of the neurons firing, much as the software program that runs on
the hardware machinery. They "exist" in completely different
ways, which makes any duality a mere equivocation. Thus
knowledge of one, say the software, tells us nothing about the
hardware, nor does it preclude knowledge of the hardware.
Indeed, we can and should know about both software and hardware
simultaneously. Pushing this analogy, however, one can say that
software is compiled into assembly language that refers to
specific memory registers that hold 1's and 0's in physical
flip-flop circuits that are triggered by rising edges of square
wave clock pulses generated by an oscillator deep in the CPU
that obeys laws of physics. So at its most fundamental level,
functionalism is a fancy veneer of complexity masking a
reductionist materialism. This is precisely what Bohr was
opposing. On the contrary, Bohr was saying, we cannot remove the
essential duality of nature, and the essential incompatibility
of the two ways of knowing.
So it might be expected that Bohr's dualism or complementarity
principle was highly popular with those who opposed reductionist
materialism. Unfortunately it also was a favorite of
anti-materialists as well, those who followed the gnostic
tradition of denying the importance of the material world
altogether. For example, in theology there are those who would
say that Jesus was just a man until John's baptism when the Holy
Spirit descended and infilled him with the Spirit of God, making
the Spirit primary over the body. Thus gnostics have seized on
Bohr's ideas as support for a version of eastern mysticism,
denying the importance of the physical realm (The Tao of
Physics, and The Dancing Wu Li Masters are two such
books.)
Despite this gnostic tendency, dualism has been widely
influential in theology and in the church. Descartes argued that
it was the essential difference between men and animals, for men
had souls imparted by God, whereas animals were mere machines. A
recent NY Times article praises Spinoza for opposing Descartes'
dualism, and claims that modern psychologists and neurologists
are busy destroying the myth of mind/body separation (and
replacing it with a form of functionalism). A memorable Moody
Bible Institute science film dramatized a scientist who placed a
dying patient on a doctors scale and was able to observe a
sudden weight loss at the moment of death as the soul departed
the body. In classic philosophy this view came to be known as
"the ghost in the machine", and has been critiqued by
philosophers such as A.J. Ayer.
In contrast, theologians of the past half-century have argued
against dualism not just because it leads to gnosticism, but
because the Hebrew concept of body was not separated from soul.
Indeed the entire Christian emphasis on the the resurrection of
the body makes no sense under dualism, so that Paul writes about
the death and resurrection of Christ as "foolishness to Greeks
and stumbling block to Jews." The whole reason that Christians
engage in bodily burials lies in this understanding of the body
and spirit being one. Thus there is something very disquieting
about Bohr's dualism.
One further aspect of Bohr's dualism bears analysis. Many people
view this unknowable nature of QM as refutation of Laplacian
determinism, the view that all of life can be predicted by
physical laws given enough starting information. That is, QM
says no amount of prior information can predict the outcome of a
QM system. Christians have interpreted this to mean that God in
all his omniscience cannot predict the outcome of some events,
allowing freewill to exist alongside predestination. In its more
extreme manifestation such views become "open theology" or even
Whiteheadian "process theology", whereby God is stuck in the
flow of time as we are, subject to its vicissitudes. Like
gnosticism, these extreme interpretations are clearly heretical,
so we see how Bohr's dualism has been used as justification for
any number of dubious conclusions.
- Bohm's Realism
I would propose then, that Einstein's realism, as developed by
Bell and Bohm contains the seeds of a Trinitarian interpretation
of QM. Einstein argued for the real existence of real physical
quantities independent of human observations, a view called
"naive realism". In theology, we might argue for the real
existence of real miracles such as the resurrection, independent
of human observations. Contrast that with the revisionist
interpretation of the NT which suggest that the historical event
was irrelevant, that reality only existed in the minds of the
observers who composed the NT (a view more in line with Bohr.)
In 1961 John Bell took the now-famous EPR paper, and proved a
theorem that naive realism or what he called "hidden variable
theory" produced a different statistical result to the EPR
experiment than QM. This permitted the EPR experiment to be
conducted, which proposed that an explicitly QM system having
two correlated particles, such as 2 photons, could be produced
simultaneously so that they were twins, having exactly opposite
properties. That is, physicists view conservation laws as the
most deeply held properties of the universe--the conservation of
energy, momentum, charge, parity and spin. So that if two
particle "twins" are emitted simultaneously, they must have
opposite properties to conserve these quantities. So if one
particle heads east, the other must head west to conserve
momentum. If one particle is spin up (think of a miniature bar
magnet with the N-pole up) then the other particle must be spin
down. Now Einstein argued that whether anyone is watching or
not, if particle #1 is spin up, then #2 is spin down. Conversely
Bohr's interpretation of QM argued that only after someone
measures the particle will it know which way it is pointing.
Einstein pointed out that if QM is true, then the measurement of
#1 will seemingly instantaneously change the value of #2, no
matter how far away, so as to have the opposite of #1. This
Einstein could not believe, and thus he rejected QM for
predicting such strange behavior.
So John Bell's theorem paved the way for an experiment to make
the measurement and see who was right. When the experiments were
performed in the early 1970's, which because of the difficulty
of producing good "twin" particles, took some time to be
conclusive, it became more and more apparent that the QM
prediction was correct, and naive realism failed. Most
physicists took this as vindication of Bohr's Copenhagen
interpretation, but a small coterie of realists struggled to
adapt their theory, unwilling, like Einstein, to abandon their
coherent realist world view for some pseudo-spiritual dualism.
Now in 1952 David Bohm had worked out a novel interpretation of
realism which allowed it to achieve the same statistics as QM,
but at a price. He proposed that before particle #1 is measured,
it is preceded by a quantum potential, or "pilot wave" in
Schroedinger's terminology, that explores every nook and cranny
of available space, and "tells" the particle where to go. When a
measurement on #1 is made, this "pilot wave" instantly informs
#2 what has happened and causes it to adapt its behavior. Such
an instantaneous information transfer is called "non-locality"
and violates another of Einstein's postulates, that nothing can
go faster than the speed of light.
Before I go further, perhaps we should list some disadvantages
to non-locality. When a scientist does an experiment, whether it
be feeding rats an experimental drug or searching for a fifth
force acting on a falling weight, he is making the assumption
that the experiment can be isolated from unnecessary outside
influences and the only important effect is the one being
considered. Contrast this scientific approach with astrology,
which suggests that the position of the planets, the presence of
comets, or the orbital location of the earth at the birth date
all affect the behavior at the present moment. Many historians
have argued that the rise of modern science in the
Enlightenment, e.g. Francis Bacon, was all a consequence of
turning away from "magical" explanations of
"action-at-a-distance" and refining the locally isolated
"scientific method". To accept Bohm's conjecture would, to many
scientific minds, reopen the floodgates to a deluge of New Age
magical explanations of nature. So we are left with two unhappy
choices, either nature is essentially dualistic, or nature is
non-local. (Other less popular choices have been proposed,
including "reverse causation", many-worlds, and "scientific
agnosticism", but since most of these explanations forgo
"meaning" or "purpose", we ignore them here.)
Can we, in this post-QM world, distinguish which interpretation
is correct? I would like to suggest that once again, theology
shows the way. We are all familiar with the omniscient,
omnipotent and omnibenevolence of God, often as a preliminary to
the problem of evil. Less advertised is the omnipresence or
ubiquity of God. Ps 139 "if I take the wings of the morning and
fly to the uttermost parts of the sea, even there thy hand will
guide me..." And as Einstein tells us, space is time, so that
if God is everywhere, he is also everywhen. This ubiquity in
space-time corresponds to a single event, a single entity in
eternity, and suggests to us a solution to the Bohmian crisis.
If Bohm's non-local potential or "pilot wave" is everywhere,
then it too must be a single event in eternity. With some
concern about mixing metaphors, would it not be fair to say that
this non-locality of QM potentials in space corresponds to God
the Spirit? Colossians 1 says that Christ "upholds the universe
by his word of power", which we would now interpret as the word
spoken in eternity, now ubiquitous in space-time. Thus QM as it
explains the foundations of its knowledge, discovers the word of
God.
Such an interpretation, of course, has great ramifications both
in theology and physics, but since theologians have always
stated something like this, it is physics that is affected the
most. Let's start with a paper that appeared some years ago in
the reputable New England Journal of Medicine. The authors
report on an experiment first suggested by C.S. Lewis a
half-century ago, namely, to carry out a double-blind test of
the effectiveness of prayer. They compiled a list of hospital
patients, divided it into test and control groups, and then sent
the names of the test patients to local churches, synagogues and
mosques in the area and requested prayer. The patients knew
nothing of the prayer requests, the church members knew nothing
of the patients. Yet to very good statistical significance, the
test group recovered faster and better than the controls. Prayer
works. We don't know how or why, but it is a scientifically
demonstrable effect.
Now the religion of secular science, methodological naturalism,
would claim strict separation, duality if you like, between
phenomena and noumena, between physics and philosophy, between
people and prayer. The most amazing aspect of this story is not
that prayer works (millions of Christians and Muslims and Jews
already know this) but that NEJM would publish it. If nothing
else, this article demonstrates that there are cracks in the
monolith of scientific rationalism, that we are now living in a
post-materialist age.
- Interference
Another example is a bit more esoteric, but nevertheless very
important in the world of physics. It concerns a piece of
physics apparatus known as an interferometer. In this apparatus,
light is sent through a beam splitter that traditionally was
made by a bad mirror, a "half-silvered mirror", where half the
light would go through, and half would get reflected. The split
beam would then go down two separate but identical sides of the
apparatus, reflect off good mirrors, and get recombined by means
of a second half-silvered mirror.
Now when we can treat light as a wave, as Thomas Young did who
accomplished the first interference experiment in 1801, then
splitting and combining waves generate interference patterns,
where the crest of one wave cancels the trough of the other
causing dark spaces, whereas when the crest of one wave matches
the crest of the other, the light appears twice as bright. This
pattern of bright and dark bands became known as "interference
fringes", and are observed at the output of our second beam
splitter.
This neat description of light as a wave, however, did not
survive Einstein's 1905 Nobel prize-winning paper in which he
showed that light comes in packets, later called photons. As
long as there are many, many packets, as in Young's experiment,
no one notices photons individually, but if we dim the lights
way down, we can essentially send one packet at a time into our
interferometer. Then when that packet hits the first beam
splitter, it doesn't turn into 2 half-packets, which is not
allowed by Einstein's theory, rather it has to go through or get
reflected. So by the time that photon makes it to the 2nd beam
splitter, should we expect an interference pattern or not? It
seems that a packet can't interfere with itself, so why should
there be any fringe at all?
But that isn't what we see. One photon makes one spot on our
photographic film, of course, but little by little, one photon
at a time, those spots build up an interference fringe pattern
on our film, just as QM would predict. This is quite upsetting
to realists, who would like to know how a single photon can
interfere with itself. The QM interpretation would be that the
photon goes both directions at once when it hits the
first splitter, and so the "probability wave" of the potential 2
photons can interfere with itself before it hits the film and
gets turned back into a particle photon again. "Nonsense"
replies the realist, "I'll measure which side the photon is on,
and then we can prove there no such thing as 'going both ways at
once'"
So the interferometer was modified to have special crystals
inserted in each side-branch after the splitter. These crystals
are similar to those found in green laser pointers. In a green
laser pointer, a little red laser diode sends 2 red photons into
the crystal and 1 green photon comes out. In this application we
use the crystals backwards and send in a green photon and get
two red ones coming out. One of the red photons we send into a
detector that registers a blip, and the other continues on its
merry way through the side-branch of the interferometer to be
recombined at the 2nd splitter. Now we still have the same story
about photons being split and recombined, but in addition, we
have information about which side the photon went through. When
we set up this modified apparatus, recorded the side with the
photon, the interference fringes disappeared, replaced with
ordinary single photon splotch. "Ahh", the QM theorist
explained, "you disturbed the system by measuring it."
"Wait a minute", said the realist, "I didn't touch the other red
photon, I only looked at one of them, how can that be disturbing
it?" "Well", says the QM theorist, "they are correlated red
photons, and knowledge of one, implies disturbance of the other.
Perhaps if you don't have any knowledge, you will not disturb
it." So the experiment was modified. Instead of putting a
detector right next to the crystal, the twin red photons that
normally would tell us which side the original green photon
travelled were redirected from each crystal to a 3rd beam
splitter where they were recombined before sending them into a
detector. Now we can only tell that somewhere a green photon has
hit a crystal, but we don't know which side it came from.
Immediately the interference pattern at splitter #2 reappeared.
That is, even when splitter #3 is moved far, far away from the
apparatus, nonetheless it controlled the interference pattern at
#2. When we inserted it, the pattern reappeared, when we removed
it the pattern disappeared. Somehow, the photons "knew" what we
were doing. Or to put it differently, knowledge of the system
had measurable effects. To use a physical word, knowledge was
power.
How can we reconcile this physics experiment with our theology?
There is a deep connection between word and knowledge, between
Spirit and Truth. Jesus said that the Spirit would lead us into
all Truth, and that the Spirit would convict the world of sin
(knowledge). We are even told that the sword of the Spirit is
the word of God. Thus we begin to understand C.S. Lewis' comment
that God waits upon our prayers, for prayer is a manifestation
of word and Spirit, which in a QM sense has measurable physical
effects.
So once again we see the necessity of the Trinity. Jesus prayed
to the Father when he was on this earth because it had
measurable effects. We pray because it has measurable effects.
If we accept that the personalization of that measurable effect
is the Spirit, then we can see how not just the temporal-spatial
realm, and the eternity of God, but the transformation between
the two is permeated with the presence of God. Note however,
that nature is not God, nor is eternity God, nor the transform
of prayer equal to God. The ubiquity of God in time still is a
single event in eternity.
- Personal Truth
Therefore we see why Paul tells us to "test the spirits", for
there may be many such ubiquitous influences in our world that
are nonetheless separate entities in eternity. Although we argue
for a spiritual or non-local aspect to our reality, it must not
be confused with the supreme entity of eternity, God.
Conversely, however, it must not be treated as an impersonal
force. Just as prayer is the expression of a person, that
knowledge is a property of intelligence, so this non-local
spirit is a personal expression of an eternal being. Jesus said,
I am the Truth, telling us that there is a deep connection
between observation and personality. That is, the strict
separation between phenomena and noumena that began in the
Enlightenment is beginning to crumble. As QM shows us, that
observation changes the thing observed, we begin to understand
the knowledge is personal. Now we see that not only is the
acquisition of knowledge involve the observer, but the process
itself by which knowledge is actualized and realized, the FT
from time to eternity where Truth dwells, it itself a personal
process. Thus we find again an expression of Trinitarian
theology in our post-materialist epistemology, for the Truth
lives in eternity, appears as data and events in our time, and
is transmitted by the FT of the Spirit.
What does it mean to say that Truth is personal? For one thing,
it is important that we shed our Enlightenment prejudices about
objective, abstract propositional truth. Rather truth carries
with it ethical, moral and aesthetic dimensions all related to
its essentially personal nature. For example, knowledge of how
to build atom bombs is not a neutral, objective rational
proposition, but a choice that carries with it ethical and moral
repercussions. It is a knowledge that has precipitated a recent
war. Knowledge is power, it is also persuasive and personal. In
theology, the truth is not some sort of proposition about our
status in salvation, or the historical evidence of a Jewish
nation, rather it is the living interaction with a real person.
We cannot own the Truth, any more than we can own a person. Nor
can we relativize the Truth any more than we can misrepresent a
friend. Rather we must have a relationship with the Truth,
communicate with the Truth, dialogue with him and to the best of
our ability, understand and know this person who is the Truth.
Church conflicts then do not center on "who is right", but on
who has a closer relationship with the man at the top. Thus
moral failings, ethical behavior, holiness and purity are as
important in these debates as orthodox theology.
Likewise in physics, it is not enough that we have a
self-consistent set of equations that match observations, but
that these equations be aesthetically pleasing, that they must
inform us not just about our single data set, but bring purpose
and meaning to the other laws of nature in a pleasing and
integrative way. The theory must have a telos, a
purpose, a unity to become great physics, just as Einstein's
vision of space-time took the physics world by storm. Yet
implicit in that revolution was the long-suppressed seed of
truth that purpose requires a person, that aesthetics requires
an artist, that a design requires a designer. I say
long-suppressed because of the incompatibility of this seed with
the widely accepted indifference of materialist metaphysics. But
now as we shed the shackles of materialism we are finally free
to say what has long been denied--the creation reveals the glory
of God. Let us never return to the sterility of the Renaissance
view of abstract truth, to the dungeons of despair. Let us
embrace and revel in the freedom of finding purpose once again
in the face of personal Truth.
- New Physics
Finally free then to inquire about the purposes of physics, we
can explore the spiritual dimension of reality with the same
tools of theory and experiment. We can explore not just the
effect of prayer on bodily healing, but the effects of prayer on
mechanics, on QM or nuclear physics. Indeed, many of these
boundaries have long seen misunderstood pioneers, such as the
parapsychology labs popular several decades ago. They have long
endured the scorn of the scientific establishment, and retreated
into the safety of innocuous experiments involving the guessing
of playing cards or the triggering of unstable electronic
circuits. Despite statistically significant results, no one has
found a use or will admit to using these results.
Now, however, that we have escaped the prison of objectivity, we
can explore far more relevant applications of personal Truth. Is
there danger that we revert to the magic of the medieval period,
that we become inundated by pseudo-science New Age mysticism?
Absolutely. We address those concerns a little later, but first
let us develop the positive aspects of this new found freedom.
My favorite example is the splash made by cold fusion about 10
years ago.
Fusion is the process whereby the sun produces its energy,
burning hydrogen into helium ash by combining four hydrogen
atoms together in the crushing gravity at the center of the sun.
We have tried for 50 years to duplicate that feat in the
laboratory with magnetic bottles holding the 10 million degree
hydrogen (since normal bottles would vaporize at this
temperature), but without success. For if we could accomplish
this magic, then we could use the abundant hydrogen of sea water
and produce megawatts of energy for millions of years without
running out of fuel. And if the two cold fusion scientists,
Pons and Fleishman, were correct, we could do this magic on a
tabletop for a few thousand dollars without the need for the
billion dollar magnetic bottle presently envisioned.
From a physics view the difficulty with nuclear burning of
hydrogen is getting the protons in the nucleus close enough
together to fuse them. Now QM tell us that these protons are
wavelike, so that even when a huge potential barrier separates
them, the waves can "leak out" or "tunnel" through the barrier
and fuse. This tunnelling probability is an extremely sensitive
function of the barrier height, the distance between the
protons, and the wave energy, such that similar nuclei can have
vastly different tunnelling probabilities from microseconds to
millions of years.
So when Pons and Fleishman proposed that filling up the noble
metal palladium with hydrogen, which tends to snuggle in between
the atoms of the metal, would bring the hydrogen almost as close
together as the crushing gravity of the sun, it seemed entirely
probable that the tunnelling probability would increase enough
to begin a fusion reaction. Certainly the theorists thought so,
and started churning out theory papers on the feasibility of the
process. The frustrating aspect of this experiment was that the
results weren't repeatable, and in fact, even the failures
weren't repeatable. The consequence was that the scientific
community has divided into two groups, a large contingent of
skeptics and a smaller, secretive group of true believers. Why
this polarization in what should have been a cut-and-dry
experiment? Perhaps we are starting to see, even in physics, the
same effects as reported by NEJM, the power of prayer.
That is, the belief and prayers of true believers in cold fusion
are affecting their results and causing this bifurcation in the
community. This reminds me of a story related to me by a
Christian college professor, who had been advised not to pray
over his experiments "because if prayer doesn't work, it's a
waste of time, but if prayer does work, no one will be able to
repeat it." What was meant as a joke, now appears to have come
true. But this non-repeatability of experimental prayer need not
be seen as a drawback. It is nice when a magic bullet drug, like
penicillin, works for every patient equally well, believers or
unbelievers, but there are equally many examples when the drug
doesn't work and the doctor says "all you can do now is pray".
Likewise cold fusion may solve all the world's energy problems,
but suppose it can be turned into tabletop bombs, perhaps it is
fortunate that it only works, intermittently, with
prayer.
And now let us bring in theology. When Elijah stood on Mt Carmel
and prayed for fire from heaven, this fire fell from a hard blue
sky with no trace of clouds, consuming not only the sacrifice,
but the stones of the altar and the water in the ditch. The
usual explanation of a lightning bolt "out of the blue" neither
fits the weather conditions nor the description of the damage.
Lightning occurs with charge separation generated by friction
with water droplets, but there was no water. Likewise, large
electrical currents heat their conducting medium by Joule or
frictional heating. Stones don't carry electricity, so the
current must have been carried by the water which would have
turned to steam. But a steam explosion would hardly fit the
description of the heavenly fire "consuming" the stones, rather
it would have thrown rocks and wood splinters everywhere. But
what if Elijah had caused a cold fusion reaction through
prayer?
We have at least two more examples of this phenomena in the
Bible, when Elijah twice calls down fire from heaven upon a
military detachment of 50 soldiers from King Ahaziah. One might
try to argue for random occurrence on Mt Carmel, but this
explanation completely fails in these two examples. Therefore we
might assume that this "measure of the Spirit", which Elisha
covetted, has enabled Elijah greater control over the tunnelling
probabilities of QM. And conversely it is the lack of the Spirit
that has made the cold fusion experiments so sporadic.
What then have we said? That "magic" has been introduced back
into science. For if Truth is personal, we expect it to vary
from person to person. But isn't the whole power of Science lie
in its impersonal objective nature? Isn't this what lifted the
West out of the morass of alchemy in the Middle Ages? Indeed it
was, but as true experimentalists, we must be true to what we
see and hear and not modify our data to fit our religion. We see
and hear that prayer works, at least qualitatively. The only
question remaining is the quantitative one. All we have said was
that "the measure of the Spirit" is the quantitative measure of
prayer.
How then is this different from medieval magic? Well, for one
thing, we have learned well the lesson of objective science, and
we do not forget it. This personal approach is not in place of
materialism, but in addition to materialism. It is as if we have
learned the 2 dimensions of objective truth and have been given
a 3rd dimension to view nature with. We are now able to do that
which had been impossible in the era of objectivity. It is only
after 5 centuries of materialistic science that we are coming to
the limits of the technique, with medicine, QM, cosmology,
microelectronics, computational speed, all reaching the end of
their development. And despite the hype of nanotechnology or
genome research or protein folding, we are finding that
reductionist determinism is unable to crack the mystery of the
origin of life, of cellular chemistry, of cosmological
constants, of quantum cryptography. Rather we are finding more
and more that the personal, the ends oriented, the telos, the
irreducibly complex picture of the world cannot be understood
with Newtonian machinery, with random chance, with reductionist
rationalism. Thus real progress, real advance, real power awaits
those scientists who address this personal aspect of knowledge.
Again, how is this possible? Because the Truth is a person. He
is not the arbitrary power of personality which traditional
magic refers to. Rather He is as solid and real as a law of
physics. He is an event in time, and ever-present in eternity.
He is the eternally begotten, light from light, truth from
truth, both real and personal, both particle and wave, both
alpha and omega, both present and past and still to come,
Amen.
- The Problem of Evil and
QM
We have earlier addressed the problem of evil from the
perspective of Personal Truth. Here we want to look at the same
issue from the perspective of QM. At the Enlightenment, Newton's
mechanical view of the universe became the controlling
analogy, the metaphysics of understanding both God and nature.
Thus the trinity of time-space-matter and the calculus of time
derivatives--motion, force and acceleration, could define all
existence and its interactions. This mechanical view of the
world is to be contrasted with the Aristotelian view which
preceded it, which identified four purposes that explain all
matter, and "desires" or "attractions" that account for its
dynamics. Newton may have hit upon the more mathematically
tractable description, but with the concomitant loss of purpose,
telos, and passion.
Now we come to the classic problem of evil, or theodicy. For if
our mechanical metaphysics can describe all existence in terms
of inherent properties of space-time matter, then we can
likewise define God the same way, albeit with divine attributes.
Whereas Aristotle, had he been a Christian, might have defined
God in terms of purpose and passion, Newton's God was made of
attributes and laws. Thus omniscience was an attribute of
divinity that prescribed what God must know--everything.
Likewise omnipotence is an attribute that prescribed what God
must be able to accomplish--anything. And omnibenevolence was an
attribute that describes how God must always
act--kindly.
So here we come to the first of many difficulties. How do we
know what is knowledge or power or kindness? If God afflicts my
wife with cancer, was that kind? Does God know precisely when
that drunk would run the red light and kill the church organist
on her way to church? Can God make a rock bigger than he can
lift? All of these questions hinge on our understanding of these
"omnis", but what is our understanding based on? Is it not
merely extrapolations of our human abilities, greatly magnified?
Or perhaps it is just the negation of our human failings? In
which case, maybe it is just the projection of our invidious
unfulfilled desires? Is that sublime enough to construct divine
attributes from? Are not His ways higher than our ways as the
heavens are higher than the earth?
Yet there is another assumption we have absorbed from Newton,
that there should even be such a thing as an attribute which God
must follow. This may be true of a thing, or a machine, or an
inanimate lump of matter, but should it apply at all to God? As
a brief test, can we apply such attributes to ourselves? Can we
say, our friend so-and-so is knowledgeable, wise and benevolent,
therefore our friend must act in a way we can easily predict?
And if exceptions are the norm instead of the rule, then why
should we expect God to be better behaved than our
friends?
Another way of stating this same problem is to ask whether
attributes have any meaning at all. QM tells us that some
attributes, such as position and spin, happily coexist with each
other so that we can independently verify either or both of them
with measurement. On the other hand, some attributes absolutely
detest each other, so that possession of one destroys any
knowledge of the other. We have similar paradoxes in everyday
speech, for we say "You can't have your cake and eat it too."
This isn't so surprising until we run across pairs of
incompatible attributes such as the position and momentum of a
particle. Our Newtonian trained minds balk at this seeming
incompatibility of what should be a well-behaved pair. Could it
be that we have done exactly the same thing when we try to pair
up the attributes of God--his omniscience, omnipotence, and
omnibenevolence? Perhaps this is just one more way in which QM
destroys our mechanistic view of the universe.
Finally we come to the problem of evil. If God possesses these
three omnis, then why is there any evil at all in the universe?
Leibnitz, who co-developed calculus with Newton, would have said
that there isn't. He would say that we live in the best of all
possible worlds, and that God who is the supreme craftsman would
have made this world machine without fault or blemish. Voltaire
famously parodied this view in his novel "Candide", for it seems
apparent to most of us who live less privileged lives than
Leibnitz, that there is sufficient evidence for sin and
suffering to think or wish for another world. Even Leibnitz
never received the recognition for calculus that he felt he
deserved. So it seems that this desire of Leibnitz or the
Natural Theology of Paley, or the Deism of the British
philosophers arose from a Newtonian concept that God must (by
his attributes) have created a perfect, rational, machine-like
world in which evil would be a major disruption.
This is not the picture we get from the book of Job, nor the
picture we get from QM. Some have felt that the Bohr dualism
permits a freedom, an existence, a possibility for evil. In
Rabbi Kuschner's view, God is powerless to prevent evil from
creeping into the system perhaps through this QM loophole. I
still find this dualistic view of good and evil less than
satisfactory. It seems to presuppose a well-oiled machine in
which the gremlins of QM are dropping sand into the gears. It
would seem to me that we must abandon all attempt to objectivize
good and evil. These are not abstract principles any more than
the world is a machine. Rather good and evil are the expressions
of personality. Perhaps to say that a tool is good, is to say
that it functions well. But to say that a person is good tells
us very little about the functioning of that person, rather it
tells us about the choices, the heart, the personality. And if
knowledge of our world is not mechanical, if knowledge draws us
into the thing known, if truth is personal, then the good and
evil of this world are not objective functions of a mechanical
machine, but a reflection of the personality of both the one who
made it, and the one who measures it. This is what QM is telling
us, that we are one with the thing we observe.
Simply put then, the existence of evil in the world is a
consequence of evil in the heart of the one who observes it.
We are incapable of knowing "the tree of the fruit of the
knowledge of good and evil" without becoming part of process
ourselves. Like Adam and Eve, we cannot gain knowledge without
also obtaining guilt, we cannot know without being known.
What is prayer? This is a much deeper question than it first
appears. Let us avoid beginning with either the theological and
the practical answer and start with the empirical answer as a
way to refresh our thinking. We define prayer as something we
say (words!) that have no material chance of being answered.
That is, "don't shout" is not a prayer, but "God help me" is.
Secondly, a prayer expects some action. "Isn't that wonderful"
is not a prayer, while "bless Aunt Susy" is. Therefore from our
empirical viewpoint, the question of "does prayer work?" is to
ask a perfectly reasonable question, which might be stated,
"does the positive outcome of a prayer request exceed the
probability of the chance hypothesis?" Using this criteria, the
NEJM showed that prayer was effective, with statistically
significant improvement over the control group. They also found
that religious affiliation didn't seem to matter in
effectiveness.
Now many evangelical Christians (and probably orthodox Jews and
conservative Muslims) found this result paradoxical, because
they believed in prayer and the NEJM materialists didn't, but
they believed that it was only their prayers that worked, yet
NEJM found everyone's prayers to work. That is, the Bible was
very clear that the worship of idols, "that neither see nor
speak", was a waste of time. Why then should someone else's
prayers have any effect? One suspects that proponents of the
post-modern "inclusive" religion of America would be overjoyed
by the findings, and in fact, may have biassed the results by
not reporting quantitative differences, only qualitative ones.
Nevertheless, the paradox is that by allowing all religions
equal effect, the NEJM findings undermine the exclusive claims
of many of these religions.
I would suggest that this difficulty is a false dichotomy, akin
to "do you go out or at night?", or "do you walk to school or
carry your lunch?". The problem is hardly an issue with a 3rd
world citizen, who understands the issues far differently. When
Moses confronted the magicians of Egypt, it surprised him not at
all that they should duplicate his miracles, though I confess,
it surprised me. Why? Because at the heart, the West hardly
believes in miracles at all. Hardly, because they grudgingly
admit that God can do whatever He wants to, but they neither
expect, nor ask, nor observe such miraculous answers to prayer.
They pray "if it be your will", or "help the doctors with the
surgery". By our criteria above, those prayers can be answered
without resort to a non-materialist miracle. In other words,
they can't be falsified, and would therefore fail to exceed the
probability of the chance hypothesis. Unless our prayer can be
used as data in the NEJM study, it wasn't an empirically
verifiable prayer. And that's exactly how we in the West want
it, prayers that cannot be tested, because at the heart, we
don't believe in them.
Now if the West and 3rd world citizens have fundamentally
different worldviews, which (or neither) is the original view? I
propose that it is the West that has grown more skeptical.
More specifically, it is the ongoing victory of materialism over
the last two centuries that has so changed us and shaped our
views of prayer and miracles. From Biblical times through
medieval and reformation history, a word spoken had spiritual
significance, a curse was important, so that a curse spoken
without basis came back upon cursor's head. All we have left in
our society today, is a slight disapproval for "bad language",
and judging by Hollywood, baseless cursing is good for ratings,
CD's and selling movies. Likewise blessing was so significant
that Esau pleaded for a blessing after Jacob stole his. Neither
blessing nor cursing seems to have any direct connection to
asking God for a miracle, rather, it came true because the
Biblical writer believed in the power of a spoken word.
Now that QM has shown us that the materialist view is false,
that the spoken word is the FT to eternity, that "keeping one's
word" is a virtue not because of some economic business model,
but because it lays a foundation in eternity, now we can begin
to understand the significance of blessing, cursing and praying.
All of these are connections, are information, are power lines
between eternity and now. They have effects because they change
the quantum potential, they communicate, they transmit
information.
Thus I do not believe either the Biblical authors and audience,
or the 3rd world citizens today would be the slightest bit
surprised by the results of the NEJM experiment. Where they
would perhaps differ, like Moses and the magicians of Pharaoh,
is in whose prayers are most effective. In other words, it is
not a question of qualitative action, but quantitative
effectiveness. We pray, not because prayer works a little bit,
but because it works wonders. When once we recognize this
incredible power of prayer, it is hard to stop. We should be
praying not just for our experiments, not just for our exams,
but for the really big things out there, the individual and
corporate triumph of the Church in this depraved world. We need
to be praying for the vindication of the oppressed, the
overthrow of the wicked, and for the consummation of the world's
one true hope and great salvation, the immediate and glorious
return of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior.
Soli Deo Gloria
Last modified by Robert Sheldon, March 23,
2004
email: r*bs@rbsp.info (remove asterisk)