I received interesting responses to my QM web page on another LISTSERV.
Here it is -- I don't exactly know what to make of them. At least the
Appreciation to several for comments on this.
John Burgeson has posted several papers discussing the paradoxes in
quantum mechanics (and provides links where other papers can be seen) at
his Web site:
He states: "These materials are maintained as a resource for Ph.D. level
students at the Iliff School of Theology in Denver, Colorado. I am
interested in comments on them; do they represent QM well to divinity
students with little/no training in the sciences?"
I briefly visited this site and noticed that most of the papers had a
similar point of view -- that which holds the "non-locality" explanation
for certain quantum phenomena. In this sense, the site presents
information to theology students which might be misleading because it is
not balanced by alternative explanations which might make more sense.
Perhaps the following references can help provide that missing balance
and help to dispel some of the mystery surrounding quantum mechanics as
Firstly, on the physics side of Science, these two books might be useful
(but they may be out of print):
"Quantum Physics: Illusion or Reality?" (1986) by A. I. M. Rae;
"Quantum Physics and Observed Reality: A Critical Interpretation of
Quantum Mechanics" (1992) by H. Wimmel.
And these papers may give some insight into why quantum mechanics works
(it is, after all, "merely" an empirical formalism for calculating
"Quantum Paradoxes Resolved: A Valid Conceptual Description of Quantum
Physics" by H. Wimmel (Il Nuovo Cimento, Vol. 109 B, No. 10, October
"Quantum Theory Without Observers -- Parts One and Two" by S. Goldstein
(Physics Today, March and April 1998);
"Quantum mirages formed by coherent projection of electronic structure"
by H. C. Manoharan, C. P. Lutz, and D. M. Eigler (Nature, Vol. 403, 3
Secondly, on the theological side of Science, this book discusses how the
predominate "world view" of an era permeates and conditions the
intellectual pursuits of that era (in this light, the chapter on the
motivations of Baruch Spinoza may be of interest to the participants in
"A History of the Synoptic Problem" (1999) by D. L. Dungan.
These references present a scientific position on quantum mechanics
which, I think, makes better sense than the "non-locality" explanation;
and, as a consequence, the so-called "paradoxes" become not so
paradoxical. It may be that the "non-locality" explanation is a
conceptual "dead-end" and that the alternative explanation will be a more
rewarding intellectual enterprise for your students -- especially if they
take the Genesis account seriously!
And a second somewhat like unto the first:
I am writing anonymously ... and suggest the
interesting perspective on QM experiments offered by Caroline H.
Thompson on her Web site. A caution though -- where her critiques are
insightful, she is involved with the "Realism" movement in Science
(represented by the "Natural Philosophy Association" q.v.) which is
influenced by "Occultic" doctrines (eg., those of Helena Blavatsky)
concerning the nature of space and time. Among these questionable
doctrines is that of the "aither" (one of the five Elements from Greek
[primarily Pythagorean] metaphysics) that has been revived in the
"aether" theories in modern physics. There is some merit (both
theologically [Genesis 1:2] and scientifically [Maxwell's EM theory]) to
acknowledging the existence of an underlying spatial substrate, but the
occultic baggage posits that the universe is "absolute" and "eternal" --
a "siren's song" for the theistic world view. Nevertheless, aether
models do allow for the propagation of "de Broglie [or Bohmian] pilot
waves" produced by matter as the agency by which both "single photon"
interference and "action-at-a-distance" phenomena can occur. With this
caveat in mind, theology students can explore these ideas to acquire the
background information necessary to "pierce the darkness" surrounding QM
rhetoric and expose the philosophical (and theological) underpinnings of
that increasingly pseudoscientific branch of physics.
I looked at the Caroline Thompson web site but it is rather beyond my
understanding. It does look a little like "creation science's" challenge
to orthodox evolutionary science, but I may be judging it too harshly.
Burgy (John Burgeson)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 30 2001 - 11:10:04 EDT