God and the smallest particle of matter

[Cheerful Charlie]

We live in a Universe awash in thermal energy. This is what collapses wave functions. Trying to create a cubit for quantum computers has proven to be extremely difficult, because thermal energy collapses the cubit's wave function so easily. The idea then of a cat having a wave function is ludicrous. The sea of thermal energy a cat lives in will not allow such a thing. Wave functions are something that occur on very small scales, in momentary fashion, on the quantum scale.

The idea that observation by a concious entity has anything to do with it is not a viable hypothesis.

 

[Bomb#20]

We live in a Universe awash in thermal energy. This is what collapses wave functions.

A problematic hypothesis. How does a system with an uncollapsed wave function that gets a delivery of energy from the universe's bath know whether that energy was thermal or not? What is there in the mathematics of QFT that lets it distinguish between thermal interactions that collapse wave functions and ordinary interactions that simply enlarge the wave function to include the new particle that delivered the energy? "Thermal" is a property of ensembles of particles; how many particles have to interact with a system before the wave function collapses?

Trying to create a cubit for quantum computers has proven to be extremely difficult, because thermal energy collapses the cubit's wave function so easily.

How do you know the cubit's wave function collapsed, as opposed to having become entangled with something other than the other cubits?

The idea then of a cat having a wave function is ludicrous. The sea of thermal energy a cat lives in will not allow such a thing. Wave functions are something that occur on very small scales, in momentary fashion, on the quantum scale.

Wave functions exist on macroscopic scales and remain intact for years. You can use intensity interferometry on starlight to measure the size of the star's photons. A photon from a nearby star is tens to hundreds of meters across; and for you to make the measurement its wave function had to stay uncollapsed for tens to hundreds of years.

The idea that observation by a concious entity has anything to do with it is not a viable hypothesis.

It seems implausible to me as well; but the alternatives have problems too.

 

[arcadia]

So, what the original questioner really asked was a very old question. How many angels will fit on the head of a pin. Or the point of a pin.

 

[Learner]

So, what the original questioner really asked was a very old question. How many angels will fit on the head of a pin. Or the point of a pin.

Yes quite difficult to answer even if it were possible to fathom. Considering the question is a valid logical question and that the understanding is; non physical entities have no fixed or particular physical mass or size.

Incrediblebly though, it is quite fathomable to some,that the whole universe is supossedly thought to have fitted into a tiny thimble.

 

[BH]

THis has been a very interesting discussion. Thanks for all the replies.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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.

I think it's an unhelpful formulation of the questions. Because of quantum mechanics. When you go down far enough it's just particles popping in and out of existence. You can't really talk about discreet particles. It's all pretty messy. They've had a go talking about waves instead. Doesn't really solve the problem.

On those tiny levels I think it's more helpful to think in terms of relations. Big object A acting on Big object B (and vice versa). It's what happens, ie the transformations and energy that comes out, that matters. Way easier to talk about and understand IMHO.

Didn't Laplace do away with God from science in the end of the 18'th century? After that it's just been a question of catching up. I think that is still the case. Adding a hypothetical God to the mix doesn't help explain anything.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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".

Just like Bomb points out (a page later) a quanta just predicts odds. Anything, pretty much, can happen in the quantum world. So there's no room for a God anywhere in this model. Science really doesn't need God anymore. It's been a dead end for religious types for a while now. There's some attempts now and again. But as soon as they garner enough attention they inevitably get the attention from the scientific community and then it quickly dies (but rarely is forgotten). It always turned out to be a dumb idea. Anybody remember the Bacterial Flagellum?

The big mystery is why people still keep trying? It's as if all these religious types truly think their idea is unique. In 99 times out of 100 a Greek was first. And the ancient Greeks also killed the same idea pretty quickly. All available in any basic text book on philosophy. The rest are ideas that came up and died the following 2500 years. These arguments are not hard to look up. There are not that many. And now with Google religious types have no excuse not to.