God and the smallest particle of matter

[BH]

I have always wondered what the smallest piece of matter is that can no longer be composed of particles smaller than itself. And I wonder if that question has any relation to God, his existence, and what he could or could not do.

 

[fromderinside]

If particles are scaled relative to particles around them there may be no smallest particle. Holds for my view of God as well.

 

[The Helmetmaker]

The smallest piece of matter is called a smithereeno. . . . No, seriously, it's a quantum. God only thinks he understands quantum theory.

 

[Ddms]

The string theorists think the smallest particle is not a particle at all, but a vibrating one-dimensional string. The frequency at which it vibrates determines its characteristics and its position, which is indeterminate.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

If God is outside of time and space, what is the smallest unit of time and the smallest unit of space? How granular is the Universe to God? If God is truly outside time and space, neither smallest unit could be an arbitrary unit created by God. In this material Universe such units might be, but not outside of this material Universe.

 

[bilby]

According to QFT, a particle is just a displacement of a field from its ground state; There are no 'particles' as such at small scales - particles are just a large scale approximation of the underlying reality (it's an excellent approximation at scales larger than about the size of an atom, so it's perfectly OK to use particles as a model to simplify the math; but it's a good idea to remember that almost all of what we call physics, and all of chemistry and biology, is based on simplifying assumptions of this kind).

Basically, all our models of reality are wrong; but that's OK, as long as they are not wrong enough for our plans to be ruined. The Newtonian/Keplerian model of the solar system is good enough to predict to the minute at what time Jupiter will rise above the horizon at a given location; but if you want to get 5m accuracy with GPS, you need to take the (less wrong) Einsteinian approach to your calculations.

The smallest possible displacement of a field is called a quantum. You can think of it as a particle if you like, but at that scale, it's no longer a very good approximation - you are better off thinking of it as a vibration in a field, although even that is not particularly accurate. If you want to be precise, then you need math to describe how things behave at that scale. If you do that, you find that reality at the smallest scales can be modelled using math to a degree of precision that outstrips our best efforts to measure experimentally, so while it seems unlikely that it is not 'wrong' at some level, it's not wrong enough to be a problem for anything we might possibly conceive of trying to do.

Basically, everything we know (with the exception, so far, of Quantum Field Theory, and a handful of conservation laws that underpin it) is known to be wrong; but wrong is not an absolute - as Asimov said, "It is wrong to say the Earth is flat, and it is wrong to say the Earth is a sphere, but if you think that both statements are equally wrong, then you are as wrong as both of them put together". The stuff you were taught in grade school is good enough for most casual purposes; If you specialise in a field where the errors become important, then a more complex, but less wrong, approximation may be needed. But never forget that the facts and laws we are taught are approximations and simplifying assumptions. If you drill down far enough into the fine details, things start to get less intuitive. We are comfortable with the simple explanations of matter at human scales, and it's easy to (incorrectly) believe that the rules that work at our scale are applicable to all scales. Hence certainties such as 'Nature abhors a vacuum', 'Matter is composed of indivisible atoms', and 'Objects require a continuous input of energy in order to remain in motion' - all of these things are true, but only for the very limited environment where humans live their lives.

The question in the OP makes some invalid assumptions about the nature of matter. At the fundamental level, there are no particles, just quanta. But as far as we know, quanta are indivisible - so as it turns out, the fact that the assumptions are invalid doesn't really cause a problem.

To give a simplified answer that is good enough for our purposes: The smallest piece of matter is that can no longer be composed of particles smaller than itself is the quantum; And Gods have no part whatsoever to play in any of this - it is as useful and as sensible to say 'What about God?' in a discussion of particle physics as it is to say 'What about dragons?'. Gods don't influence particles, only the four forces influence particles; so Quantum Field Theory rules out the possibility of a 'soul' that exists independently of our physical bodies (which are made of these known particles) - There is no possible way for such a thing to exist, unless it takes a form which we could have easily detected (that is, it uses one of the four forces to interact with material objects).

Basically, we know of ALL the things that influence matter at human scales. We can demonstrate experimentally that ANY unknown forces must either be so weak as to be incapable of interacting with a live human; or so strong as to atomize him. So the 'soul', if it existed, would have to be carried by one of the four known forces. The Strong and Weak forces are too short range to get from a human brain to anywhere outside his skull; Gravitation is too weak to carry information about a person's consciousness, and it's easy to detect; and electomagnetic radiation is very easy to detect - so the absence of any of these things coming from people as they die is sufficient to prove that no such thing as an immortal soul exists - thereby ruling out a VERY large swathe of God hypotheses. Visions, telepathy, ghosts, and the afterlife are all positively excluded by Quantum Field Theory - for these things to be real would require massive and easily detected errors in the predictions made by QFT; and yet we have experimentally shown that no such gross errors exist.

 

[Learner]

Recognizable forces or matter in which we are to detect souls or invisible entities by this understanding.Then by this quantum theory approach.The idea is flawed. Because we are taking in the assumption that a 'soul' would have the very properties that is currently known to us.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Seems like God of the gaps to me.

 

[BH]

Here is the gist of what I am trying to get at, I guess.

For a long time we did not know about the quantum existing. But we could argue that everything that exists could be divided into smaller parts. You take an elephant, you could cut it in half, you take a molecule you can cut in half, you take an atom and can cut it into parts.

You could form a syllogism when the quantum was discovered (but before we knew it was the smallest particle period) and It could go like this:

Premise 1: Every object that exists can be divided into smaller parts
Premise 2: A quantum is an object
Conclusion: A quantum can be divided into smaller parts

But we found out that the quantum is the final straw o to speak on dividing things into smaller parts regardless of how reasonable and intuitive the syllogism above is. So the quantum broke the general rule about things being able to be divided into smaller parts.

Now, if we accept that there is a partcile so small it cannot be divided into a smaller particle--as mind boggling that may be, why can't we accept the universe either 1. Always existed or 2. Came about on its own and that was just "the way it is" just as the quatum being the smallest particle is "just the way it is".

 

[Learner]

Seems like God of the gaps to me.

Understandable. But there are also 'unknowledgeable gaps' in present day science, so I guess only time will tell untill we can know more.

 

[Learner]

But we found out that the quantum is the final straw o to speak on dividing things into smaller parts regardless of how reasonable and intuitive the syllogism above is. So the quantum broke the general rule about things being able to be divided into smaller parts.

Now, if we accept that there is a partcile so small it cannot be divided into a smaller particle--as mind boggling that may be, why can't we accept the universe either 1. Always existed or 2. Came about on its own and that was just "the way it is" just as the quatum being the smallest particle is "just the way it is".

Sounds sensible. I have also wondered why we make the assumption that there has to be a beginning in the first place when it comes to or rather beyond the very ultimate sub element level, (considering one can fathom such a degree of miniscule proportions). Although I dare say that the debate for example "Then who created the creator?" could also be applied to as "Was always here".

 

[bilby]

Recognizable forces or matter in which we are to detect souls or invisible entities by this understanding.Then by this quantum theory approach.The idea is flawed. Because we are taking in the assumption that a 'soul' would have the very properties that is currently known to us.

We know all of the things that interact with matter at human scales. If the soul is something else, then it cannot interact in any way with our material selves; so it's irrelevant to us in every way.

The ONLY way that there could be an unknown force or particle would be for Quantum physics to be very deeply wrong; and we tested it - if it's wrong at all, then its inaccuracies are too subtle for us to detect, even at the massive energies that we use in the Large Hadron Collider. Those energies would kill a man very quickly. The only unknown forces that are possible would be almost instantly lethal if applied to a human brain; or would not have the strength to reach outside an atom, much less to reach outside a human skull.

You don't need to like it; but it's demonstrably true. Either all of science is so badly wrong that it should be very obvious and easy to show the errors, OR there are no souls. Pick one.

 

[bilby]

Seems like God of the gaps to me.

Understandable. But there are also 'unknowledgeable gaps' in present day science, so I guess only time will tell untill we can know more.

All such gaps in quantum physics are at extreme ends of the energy scale. There are no such gaps at scales greater than atomic, but less than galactic. Humans are thousands of billions of times to large to be influenced by the former; and thousands of billions of times too small to be influenced by the latter.

YOU might have gaps in your knowledge and understanding; but that's an educational issue. WE - humanity - do not have any such gaps. We know, insofar as we can ever know anything. This is the most thoroughly tested theory in the history of science. If it was so badly wrong, then we would know nothing at all; all our technology, including the Internet on which we are having this conversation, would fail to work.

It works.

 

[bilby]

There is no longer a 'God of the gaps' argument when it comes to the question of the existence and nature of the soul; the gaps have been closed, and there's nowhere for a soul to fit.

The idea of an immortal soul that outlives our bodies now requires us not only to invent an unevidenced soul, but also to invent some unevidenced gaps in our knowledge into which we might force it.

Not so much a 'God of the gaps' as a 'God of the nonexistent gaps'. God has run out of places to hide. Any religion which includes an afterlife, or a God who influences the physical world at human scales by non-physical means, has been ruled out. That's most of them, and all of the really popular ones.

You are free (for now) to imagine a God who only influences the universe at the scale of galaxies; or at the scale of sub-nuclear quantum interactions in ultra high energy environments, such as quasars and supernovae. But I'm unaware of any religion that believes in such a limited deity.

 

[Learner]

We know all of the things that interact with matter at human scales. If the soul is something else, then it cannot interact in any way with our material selves; so it's irrelevant to us in every way.

That is of course, if you believe that a soul would consist of the known materials we 'currently' know. I doubt we are even there yet to make such conclusion.

The ONLY way that there could be an unknown force or particle would be for Quantum physics to be very deeply wrong; and we tested it - if it's wrong at all, then its inaccuracies are too subtle for us to detect, even at the massive energies that we use in the Large Hadron Collider. Those energies would kill a man very quickly. The only unknown forces that are possible would be almost instantly lethal if applied to a human brain; or would not have the strength to reach outside an atom, much less to reach outside a human skull.

Then you're probably looking in the wrong place. How about the invisible information that tells how particles should react or behave? Shouldn't the rules of the universe or the actually blueprint be pondered more on which is still invisible somewhere? Yes one can put forward the claim you can see and test things but no-one ever explains how and why it does what it does,because this info is unseen. A Blueprint or guiding hand if you will.

You don't need to like it; but it's demonstrably true. Either all of science is so badly wrong that it should be very obvious and easy to show the errors, OR there are no souls. Pick one.

There are more choices. There maybe souls and science is still improving.

 

[Learner]

YOU might have gaps in your knowledge and understanding; but that's an educational issue. WE - humanity - do not have any such gaps. We know, insofar as we can ever know anything. This is the most thoroughly tested theory in the history of science. If it was so badly wrong, then we would know nothing at all; all our technology, including the Internet on which we are having this conversation, would fail to work.

It works.

We know enough to get us this far and will know more to get us a little further. In my case its never too late to learn I suppose.

 

[Learner]

There is no longer a 'God of the gaps' argument when it comes to the question of the existence and nature of the soul; the gaps have been closed, and there's nowhere for a soul to fit.

The idea of an immortal soul that outlives our bodies now requires us not only to invent an unevidenced soul, but also to invent some unevidenced gaps in our knowledge into which we might force it.
Not so much a 'God of the gaps' as a 'God of the nonexistent gaps'. God has run out of places to hide. Any religion which includes an afterlife, or a God who influences the physical world at human scales by non-physical means, has been ruled out. That's most of them, and all of the really popular ones.

Sort of answered in my previous reply

You are free (for now) to imagine a God who only influences the universe at the scale of galaxies; or at the scale of sub-nuclear quantum interactions in ultra high energy environments, such as quasars and supernovae. But I'm unaware of any religion that believes in such a limited deity.

I can imagine a possibilty. As you mentioned with all that awsome power and energy about. As fragile as humans are. Isn't it a miracle we're here?

 

[Bomb#20]

But we found out that the quantum is the final straw o to speak on dividing things into smaller parts regardless of how reasonable and intuitive the syllogism above is. So the quantum broke the general rule about things being able to be divided into smaller parts.

Now, if we accept that there is a partcile so small it cannot be divided into a smaller particle--as mind boggling that may be, why can't we accept the universe either 1. Always existed or 2. Came about on its own and that was just "the way it is" just as the quatum being the smallest particle is "just the way it is".

Well, in the first place, we don't know "the quantum", whatever that is, can't be divided into smaller parts; all we know is we haven't yet observed it to and our most well-confirmed theory doesn't postulate divisions. And in the second place, who can't accept that the universe either always existed or came about on its own? That would seem to exhaust the space of possibilities.

 

[Bomb#20]

There is no longer a 'God of the gaps' argument when it comes to the question of the existence and nature of the soul; the gaps have been closed, and there's nowhere for a soul to fit.

The idea of an immortal soul that outlives our bodies now requires us not only to invent an unevidenced soul, but also to invent some unevidenced gaps in our knowledge into which we might force it.

Not so much a 'God of the gaps' as a 'God of the nonexistent gaps'. God has run out of places to hide. Any religion which includes an afterlife, or a God who influences the physical world at human scales by non-physical means, has been ruled out. That's most of them, and all of the really popular ones.

You are free (for now) to imagine a God who only influences the universe at the scale of galaxies; or at the scale of sub-nuclear quantum interactions in ultra high energy environments, such as quasars and supernovae. But I'm unaware of any religion that believes in such a limited deity.

That sounds ridiculous on its face. There are at least four gaps in our knowledge of physics that appear to be wide enough to drive a dump truck full of 330 million gods through.

(1) You say "Basically, everything we know (with the exception, so far, of Quantum Field Theory, and a handful of conservation laws that underpin it) is known to be wrong". Not true. General Relativity is not known to be wrong. We have an embarrassment of riches, not one but two very well tested theories. And they contradict each other. At least one of them is only an approximation. Maybe it's QFT. If so, since we don't know the form of the underlying reality that QFT is an approximation of, we're not in a great position to draw definitive conclusions about what's possible at the human scale. In 1900 the subtle problems with classical mechanics would have seemed remote from human scale too; yet as far as we can tell we appear to be in a world that allows for superposition of a live and dead cat.

(2) While we're on the subject of embarrassments of riches, QFT provides us with not one but two rules for how a physical system evolves, the Dirac equation and the Born rule. One is for what happens when the system is not observed and the other is for what happens when it is observed. What QFT does not provide is a rule for telling whether a system is being observed. You're doubtless familiar with the hypothesis that observation of a system by a conscious mind is what causes collapse of a wave function. You and I can reject that hypothesis, but until we're in a position either to experimentally detect a collapse, or else to rule out collapse and prove the Many-Worlds hypothesis, our rejection of the consciousness hypothesis is philosophy, not physics. The guys who came up with that hypothesis weren't Zukav-style woo-loving mystics; they were hard-nosed physicists who felt forced into that conclusion.

(3) QFT doesn't predict outcomes; it predicts odds. That necessarily leaves open the possibility that some hidden variable our theory doesn't model is what makes the actual determination of whether a specific photon goes through the glass or bounces back. Our inability to manipulate such variables by making human-level choices isn't proof that there are no gods with the power to control them.

(4) On a whole higher level, even if we had discovered laws of the universe as close to perfect as you're making out QFT to be, there's always one gap that can never be closed: why are the observed laws what they are? At any point in our growth of knowledge there are laws that are just brute facts to us. How do we rule out a god that chose those brute facts? To put it in stark terms, how do we know the entire observable universe isn't a simulation running on some extra-universal scientist's supercomputer? If the laws we infer are the insider's point of view but a directory-full of spaghetti-code is the outsider's point of view, then in what sense is the programmer not a god, and what is there in the laws we infer from the inside that could possibly stop her from interrupting her simulation and going to work on us, at the human scale, with her cosmic debugger?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Now, if we accept that there is a partcile so small it cannot be divided into a smaller particle--as mind boggling that may be, why can't we accept the universe either 1. Always existed or 2. Came about on its own and that was just "the way it is" just as the quatum being the smallest particle is "just the way it is".

I don't think the two statements intersect. What does a baseline have to do with the existence of the universe. If a universe can naturally exist, then so be it, regardless of its design.