2013 – The Cosmic Code

The Cosmic Code: Quantum Physics as the Language of Nature by Heinz R. Pagels.

Yup, you read that correctly. Quantum Physics. Me. Reading. Well, it’s really not that strange to people who known me. I took physics in college for my degree, and I love science. So when I saw this book in our book exchange in my building’s laundry room, I picked it up.

From Pagels’ forward in the book, I knew how biased he was going to be against God. And after looking up some info on him, and his wife, yup, definitely a couple that doesn’t believe in the existence of God. Many people think this is true of all scientists, but it’s not. I know a number of physicists, chemists, and other PhDs who are strong Christians.

So I start off by saying that science and God can coexist. And if it “has” to be one or the other, I’m taking God’s side.

Now back to the book. It was written in the late 70s and probably had the first edition come out around 1979/1980. So the topics of dark matter and the Higgs-Boson particle aren’t in here.

The first few chapters are rather interesting as they give a history of physics. You learn a little about Newton, how Einstein developed his theories and changed physics forever, and how classical physics gave way to quantum physics – and the scientists who forged that road.

Instead of really reviewing the book, I’m going to question some of the theories, experiments, suppositions and the like that according to Pagels (and quantum physicists) are “true.”

I like to do things like this, because that’s how I roll. In the course of reading the book, I put little slips of paper with notes on them to remind me of questions I had when I was reading. This was done for a few reasons. One, I HATE writing in books, it’s an abomination! Two, it would remind me of what my question was/and where the quote was that I was questioning. And three, if my question was answered later in the book, then I could remove that piece of paper and not worry about it.

Ready?

First we start on page 49 (this is a paperback edition printed in 1984). In regarding what he calls “quantum weirdness” he says, “It comes only when you ask these special questions and set up experiments to try to answer them. For example, if you try to measure precisely both the position of an electron and its velocity by repeated measurements, you find it can’t be done. Every time you measure its position the velocity changes, and vice versa—the electron has a kind of quantum slipperiness.”

Me: if the position and velocity of electrons cannot be precisely measured, how can you prove what you’re presenting as truth?

At this point he discusses the discovery of the transmutation of elements. That electrons jump orbits.

Me: If you cannot precisely measure the position and velocity of an electron, how can you say it’s jumping orbits? How do you know that the first electron you’re trying to measure is the same electron in the new position? All electrons are identical.

I left the chapter with no answers to my questions.

The next chapter again raised some serious questions in logic. He talks about Heisenberg who dispensed with all pictures of atoms (where electrons circulate a nucleus with a definite radii – think solar system model) and instead focused on what they did: transition of energy.

Cool. I get that. I know that when you bang a couple of particles together, it produces energy. But what started me down the road of confusion was that Heisenberg described the energy transitions of an atom as an array of numbers.

I’m still with him.

Max Born looked at Heisenberg’s numbers and recognized them as matrices. And that these matrices (instead of simple numbers) were the correct language for describing the atom.

Okay. I hate algebra, but I get the concept presented here. Instead of 3 x 2 = 6, we’re using two algebraic equations to multiply together. Got it. Couldn’t actually do the calculations myself, but I know what they’re talking about.

Now I get really, really confused.

Pagels points out that in classical physics the multiplication of simple numbers does not rely on the order of the numbers. For example q x p will give you the same answer as p x q.

Yup, I learned that in grade school… and still remember it.

BUT… Matrix multiplication doesn’t obey the commutative law of multiplication. Therefore, p x q does NOT have to equal q x p because p and q are matrices, not simple numbers.

The reason: we don’t live in a continuous world where Planck’s constant known as h is 0. At this point I went back and re-read the few paragraphs on Planck’s work, and still could not see how it could possibly change the basic law of multiplication – that is, the numbers can be in any order and come up with the same answer. 3 x 5 = 15; 5 x 3 = 15. Even if I substitute a complex algebraic equation for 3 and 5, the end result should still be the same no matter which equation I put first.

No example was given on matrix multiplication, so I had no way of trying to do it myself. The reader is expected to take Pagels’ word on it and continue on in their reading. (Kind of reminds me of The Origin of the Species by Darwin – no evidence, proof, test results supplied, you just had to believe he was correct. And the world has suffered since.)

On page 64, Pagels starts to explain the difference between classical (Newtonian) physics and quantum physics. He says, “Classical physics, in contrast to the new quantum theory, claimed to be able to predict the outcome of such specific measurements. The new quantum theory denies that such individual events can be determined…only the probability distribution of events is determined by quantum theory, not the outcome of specific events.”

So classical is “if A happens then B is the result.” Yup, I get that one.

And quantum is “if A happens then there’s a possibility of B, as well as C, D, E, F or G” as the result, but B has the highest probability of happening.” Okay, I get that too. It’s like playing poker or chess. Each move or card changes the dynamic of the game, and thus the result.

But what I can’t quite wrap my head around is that quantum probabilities can propagate through space and change from point to point. Quantum theory can determine the shape of the wave (of moving particles – electrons, photons, etc), and do so precisely. But back on page 49, Pagels says it can’t be done. Now Pagels says that the existence of physical events were forever unknowable and unpredictable… and calls this “indeterminism.”

He says, “The indeterminism was the first example of quantum weirdness. It implied the existence of physical events that were forever unknowable and unpredictable. Not only must human experimenters give up ever knowing when a particular atom is going to radiate or a particular nucleus undergo radioactive decay, but these events are even unknown in the perfect mind of God.”

I’d like to point out that if God’s mind is perfect (which it is) then yes, He would know all about these events, right down to the smallest quark. So Pagels contradicts himself by saying “perfect” can’t know something… which means “perfect” is actually “imperfect.” Even without his derogatory remark about our Lord, his statement is illogical.

From this point on, he states that God can only roll the dice to find out the answer, and continues to use the phrase “the God that rolls dice” throughout the rest of the book. Obviously, as a Christian who believes in an all-knowing God, this perturbs me. One, God is all-knowing and doesn’t roll dice. Two, can’t a book on quantum physics be written without blaspheming the Creator of the universe? Why stoop so low? A point can be made without slamming God every other page.

Moving on.

Okay, maybe not.

On page 68, he states, “Physicists realized that the concept of the perfect all-knowing God has no support in nature.” I pose this question: then who created the smallest particle known to man? If it is a result of the big bang, where did the two particles come from that created the bang? Why is it that there is so much order in the universe? How can math work if there is no order to judge it by? Why is it that certain particles emit only certain colors of light? If there was no order, there’d be random colors showing up from the same particles. There’d be no way to mathematically do anything because on one day 6=3 and the next 6=6; numbers would just be random because there’s no order, there’d be nothing to equate. Numbers themselves wouldn’t exist.

Moving on – again…

On page 74, he speaks of finding the position and momentum of an electron (again)… which he previously stated was unknowable. Now he says, that in just trying to set up an experiment to observe an electron, we alter the state of the object. “The very act of observation changes the state of the electron.”

If this is true, then every electron around me, right now as I type this, is going berserk because I’m observing the space around me, my keyboard, my monitor, my hands – everything around me has electrons and though I cannot, with my limited vision human eyes, actually see each individual specific electron, I can see what they’re creating, therefore, I’m observing them, and it apparently is freaking them out because this very act of observation is changing their state. Pretty soon, I expect my laptop’s electrons to go so insane that it’ll turn into a frog.

Again, I see no logic here. How do you know that observation changes the electron’s state? You’d have to observe it in order to know that. Or do you just make it up because you need your theory to work and the only way to make it work is to use imaginary numbers or make up a rule that by observing an electron, it changes its state.

By page 88, my mind is in a whirl. Now we’re talking about randomness – and that there’s no way to be sure a number is truly random and that “the most you can do is establish if the number is not random if it fails one test for randomness.”

Me: so how does one come up with a test for randomness which, as he states, there’s no way to do? For example, 314159 – looks random, but add a decimal point 3.14159 and you’ve got pi. I love pie. Apple. So by inserting a decimal point we have a non-random number. But we had to do something to it in order for it to fail the random test.

He also talks about taking long sequences of numbers, breaking them down into groups of say, 9 digits, and seeing if the individual parts are random (multiplying them together, subtracting from each other, dividing them, etc).

To me this is just trying to get the number to fit something you’ve invented. I can do that, and I’m not a quantum physicist.

On page 112, the last page of chapter 8, he makes this statement, “Nature knows nothing of imperfection; imperfection is a human perception of nature. Inasmuch as we are part of nature we are also perfect; it is our humanity that is imperfect.”

If the above statement were true, which it is not (the Bible he so much abhors states that we are imperfect beings, we’re all born with sin), but the theology aside, if the above statement were true, then explain cancer. Explain the common cold. Explain how a child, still in the womb, can have heart disease. Explain why there is evil in the world? Explain how we innately know right from wrong without being taught. If we’re perfect, there would be no wrong, everything would be perfect: no war, no disease, no murder, no rapes, not even a single bad thought. And if we were perfect, we wouldn’t need quantum physicists to make up theories about the creation of the universe because we’d already know it in our perfect little minds.

We are imperfect whether he thinks so or not. And God does not roll the dice.

Moving on to page 121 he makes another “um… what?” statement: “The electron seems to spring into existence as a real object only when we observe it!… as long as you are not actually detecting an electron, its behavior is that of a wave of probability. The moment you look at the electron it is a particle. But as soon as you are not looking it behaves like a wave again.”

I swear I played that game as a kid.

Anyway, without observing this happening, which according to him, would change the results, how can you know your test results are accurate. Part of me wants to believe that God is up there teasing them. “There it is!” “Oops, too slow!” “Hurry! You have to be faster than that!”

Hey, God has a sense of humor.

And of course, there’s this wonderful statement: “The quantum theory reveals a new message—reality is in part created by the observer.”

Seriously? Okay, I am an observer. I want my reality to have fewer fat cells, more money, and a pony. Okay, not working. So, let’s go to the microworld (I’m going quantum, hold on!). I want these atoms to form a sliver of gold. Just a sliver, not a bar… I’d have to bump up to macro for that. Come on atoms, move it! I’m observing you, you’re not aligning with the reality I want.

Stupid atoms.

Okay, maybe I wasn’t micro enough. I’m now observing the atoms on my screen. In my observation, I want the reality to be that they’re not oxygen particles, but rather particles of radiation.

Imagine that. Save a lot on fuel costs if we could just “poof” nuclear energy out of thin air.

Also would have more cancer. But we can observe the cancer cells and “poof” normal cells. Because that’s my quantum reality that I want to observe.

I’ve beat that like a dead horse. Skipping over some rather boring stuff we get to a little history on high-energy particle accelerators. I find these things fascinating. I used to live about 2 miles from Fermilab, and you used to be able to drive around on the grounds and look at the buffalo (yup, buffalo in a Chicago suburb). When 9/11 happened, it was closed off. But it looks like they may be allowing visitors back in according to the website: Fermilab

Because this book was written nearly 30 years ago, they hadn’t even started building the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva, Switzerland. Many of these accelerators and colliders are in the throes of finding dark energy or dark matter.

Anyway, the history and reason we need particle accelerators is interesting, and I enjoyed learning more about these… of course, now that I know I can go back out to Fermilab, I may have grab some friends and head back out to Batavia.

From this point, he gets down to our smallest particles. Molecules are made up of atoms which are made up of nuclei which are made up of hadrons which are made up of quarks. There are only six known quarks (in the book they were only up to 4 or 5, but was certain that there may be a sixth). They believe that quarks are sort of rock-bottom, that there’s nothing smaller than a quark.

But there’s no way to know for sure since our technology hasn’t been able to penetrate down further.

That’s fine. Too many particles bumping around making my apartment too hot anyway.

On page 187 he talks about “self-replicating molecules.” I’m still trying to figure out how that jives with evolution… because a self-replicating molecule couldn’t evolve. But then I don’t believe in evolution, so it doesn’t really matter.

Then for fun, we look at quarks. This is where science is just messed up. There are six “flavors” of quarks. Yes, flavors. And what flavors are they? Chocolate, butter pecan, banana, apple, grape, and turnip.

No. I jest.

The flavors are: up, down, strange, charm, bottom, and top.

I wonder if you can get that with hot fudge and a cherry…

Apparently, when they were first discovered, they were actually named after flavors, but then changed… yet they kept the word “flavor” to confuse people.

Anyway, quarks have never been detected as free particles… you know, like an oxygen atom just dancing around in space. Quarks have only been observed inside of hadrons, and seemingly can’t get out.

I’d like to mention that perhaps by observing this, they’re changing the reality of it. The quark sees you looking at them and boom, they pop back into the hadron to hide.

It could happen.

Next we move on to “Being and Nothingness.” Sooooooo… on page 245 here’s what we’ve got to deal with: “Since energy is uncertain for short time periods, a quantum could, in principle, come into existence in empty space and then quickly disappear.”

Probably like the quark hiding in the hadron. (snicker)

“Such a quantum that goes in and then out of reality is called a virtual quantum. It could become a real quantum, an actual particle, only if it had sufficient energy to do so.”

Say what?

He says that this process of creation of real from virtual quanta has actually been observed in a lab. Using an electron-positron colliding beam in the 1970s, they projected a high-energy beam of electrons (matter) against a beam of positrons (antimatter) which provided the necessary energy to bring the virtual pairs of particles fluctuating in vacuum into real existence.

I’d like to point out that this is not creating something out of nothing. There had to be electrons and positrons present. Then they had to be shot at each other. They were not “virtual” particles, I propose that they were just undetected particles… since, after all, he has said throughout the book, you can’t really detect them.

Then we come to this on pages 258 and 259: “When physicists first attempted to calculate the interaction of photons and electrons they found that the numbers they obtained from their calculations were infinite, a non-sense answer.”

Nonsense answer?

So, “Some physicists thought that quantum field theory made no sense because of this problem with infinitely large quantities…Eventually they managed to tame these infinities in a mathematical tour de force called the renormalization procedure.”

Let me translate: When trying to calculate interactions between photons and electrons, the resulting number was infinite. The scientists couldn’t work with “infinite” as a number, so they cheated. Pagels even gives us an illustration: “Suppose a man weighs 150 pounds on a bathroom scale. Then he has a good dinner and adds a couple of embarrassing pounds. But he decides to cheat by adjusting the bathroom scale so that it continues to read only 150 pounds. This cheating—or rescaling—is the renormalization procedure.”

Again, let’s make up how it works so that our formula is correct… that’s really all quantum seems to be. Can’t explain it, then make it up. Funny, that never worked in school.

Don’t get me wrong, I love science. Because of science we have cures for disease, we can fly to the moon and beyond, we can do things our ancestors couldn’t even imagine. But when science tries to replace God, then I have issues. When scientists make things up to get people to adhere to their philosophies or beliefs (Darwin) it isn’t science, it’s propaganda, and it ruins humanity.

If people stopped believing that we’re all just apes anyway, and believed in the fact that there is a moral right and absolute truth (none of this relativistic mumbo-jumbo), and that truth can be known through God’s Word, and people actually started living as God wants us to… the world would be a better place.

But even God said that’s not going to happen until Christ returns. We are not perfect. God is.