Quantum Physics for Religious Apologists

In my experience, most Religious Apologists don’t seem to understand quantum physics. Here is a question I was asked by an apologist...

“Does quantum theory assume "chance" to be the relevant factor accounting for dynamic functions and their results?”

The short answer is “No”, but it’s actually quite hard to decipher the question. The meaning of the term “dynamic functions” is unclear. The use of the word "chance" is also unclear – is it meaning “by accident” or related to probability?

Here are some misunderstandings of quantum physics from religious apologists...

 

1 What is Quantum Theory?

Quantum Theory is the principle that matter and energy have the properties of both particles and waves. It is used to explain a number of phenomena such as the radiation of energy from a blackbody, the photoelectric effect, and the existence of discrete packets of energy and matter, among other things.

2 What is Quantum Physics?

Quantum Physics is a branch of science that deals with discrete, indivisible units of energy called quanta as described by the Quantum Theory. There are five main ideas represented in Quantum Theory:

- Energy is not continuous, but comes in small but discrete units 

- The elementary particles behave both like particles and like waves. 

- The movement of these particles is inherently random. 

- It is physically impossible to know both the position and the momentum of a particle at the same time. The more precisely one is known, the less precise the measurement of the other is. 

- The sub-atomic world is nothing like the world we live in. 

3 Does Quantum Physics assume Chance?

No.. The word "chance" is not really appropriate when thinking about quantum physics, but probability is. The probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics emerges from the act of measurement. When a quantum system interacts with a measuring apparatus, their respective wavefunctions become entangled, so that the original quantum system ceases to exist as an independent entity. That's why quantum mechanics does not assign definite values but makes predictions - it describes the probability of obtaining possible outcomes from measuring what can be observed. 

These probabilities will depend on the quantum state at the "instant" of the measurement. Hence, uncertainty is involved in the value (not "chance").

4 Why does Quantum Physics seem so different to our everyday experience?

In the everyday world, it is natural and intuitive to think of everything having a definite position, a definite momentum, a definite energy, and a definite time of occurrence. These are the assumptions in classical physics as defined by Newton and others, and which very accurately describes our everyday observations in the “macro” world. But when we investigate the underlying properties of reality at the subatomic level, it’s apparent that those “classical” laws are an approximation.

5.1 How does Quantum Mechanics Explain anything if reality is not deterministic?

Quantum mechanics does not pinpoint the exact values of a particle's position and momentum or its energy and time but it does provide a range of probabilities in which that particle might be - given its momentum and momentum probability. 

If we measure an observable property, the wavefunction will instantaneously be a definite value. This process is known as wavefunction collapse. If one knows the corresponding wave function at the instant before the measurement, one will be able to compute the probability of the wavefunction collapsing into each of the possible definite states. 

5.2 What are quantum particles made of?

Bear in mind that quantum particles are not particles!  But whatever we call them, they consist of quantum fields.  This is an excellent description of field theory and how quantum particles are essentially events in quantum fields. The twelve fundamental particles in nature actually consist of twelve fields...

NOTE 1: These 12 fields is what everything in the universe is made from! 
NOTE 2: There are other fields related to force and mass. More information here

6 What is the Copenhagen Interpretation?

The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum theory is based on these principles:

6.1 A system is completely described by a wave function, representing the state of the system, which evolves smoothly in time, except when a measurement is made, at which point it instantaneously collapses to an eigenstate of the observable that is measured.

6.2 The description of nature is essentially probabilistic, with the probability of a given outcome of a measurement given by the square of the modulus of the amplitude of the wave function. (The Born rule, after Max Born)

6.3 It is not possible to know the value of all the properties of the system at the same time; those properties that are not known exactly must be described by probabilities. (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle)

6.4 Matter exhibits a wave–particle duality. An experiment can show the particle-like properties of matter, or the wave-like properties; in some experiments both of these complementary viewpoints must be invoked to explain the results, according to the complementarity principle of Niels Bohr.

6.5 Measuring devices are essentially classical devices, and measure only classical properties such as position and momentum.

6.6 The quantum mechanical description of large systems will closely approximate the classical description. (This is the correspondence principle of Bohr and Heisenberg).

7 Are quantum particles inherently random?

Quantum particles can be considered random in a sense due to their nature, which is neither a wave nor a particle. The randomness of quantum particles is described by a wave function.

Alternatively, perhaps they appear random because we do not know enough about them. Maybe there are factors involved that we just do not know about which cause their behaviour. For example, we consider the result of a coin-toss to be random, but it’s possible we could predict heads or tails if we measured all of the factors involved (mass of coin, speed of rotation, wind speed, etc. etc.) 

But even if randomness is fundamental to the behaviour of the universe – that does not imply chaos, which is unpredictable. Quantum events are predictable. For example, it is not impossible that all the atoms in your cup of coffee could simultaneously move two inches to the right of the cup. But it is highly unlikely and the equations of quantum mechanics enables us to calculate that probability. (Needless to say, it’s an extremely small number).

8 How is it possible to predict how forces will act upon particles if they are random?

The concept of "force" does not apply in the quantum world other than to say the fundamental forces of nature are themselves the manifestation of quantum fields. Potential energy is a more appropriate term. It is impossible to completely predict the trajectory of a quantum particle but we can accurately predict the trajectory of “macroscopic” objects such as bullets, or balls on a pool table. 

This is because you don’t have to know what each individual particle is going to do in order to know how a large collection of particles is going to behave. Quantum mechanics gives the pattern of behaviour, rather than the exact behaviour of individual particles, and this is sufficient to predict how large collections of particles will behave. 

9 Will we ever be able to discover the exact state of a quantum particle?

In one sense, there is no “exact state” of a quantum particle. Each quantum particle has a sum of possible states. Until the state is in any way measured, they all exist. As soon as something requires the state be measured, only one state remains. It is as if only one of the possible measured values has ever existed for the particle. You cannot measure the quantum properties directly. 

Quantum phenomena are neither waves nor particles but are intrinsically undefined until the moment they are measured.

10 Which scientists have been responsible for discoveries in Quantum Physics?

Einstein deserves credit for his theories and ideas which raised many questions that only quantum physics can answer. However, he seriously doubted the implications of quantum physics, such as entanglement and the measurement effect and even mocked such ideas. Sadly he didn't live to see those effects verified by experiment.

The pioneers of quantum theory were Werner Heisenberg, Max Planck, Max Born and Pascual Jordan, who created matrix mechanics; Louis de Broglie and Erwin Schrödinger (Wave Mechanics); and Wolfgang Pauli and Satyendra Nath Bose (statistics of subatomic particles). The Copenhagen interpretation was formulated by Niels Bohr and has become widely accepted. 

Schrödinger, like Einstein, also derided some of the predictions made by quantum physics, famously creating the "Schrödinger's cat" thought experiment as a way of deriding the Copenhagen interpretation, specifically, that a quantum system remains in this superposition until it is interacted with (detected) at which time the superposition collapses into a definite state. Experiments verified that Schrödinger's cat is actually true (but only for quantum systems - not cats!) 

By 1930, quantum mechanics had been further unified and formalized by the work of David Hilbert, Paul Dirac and John von Neumann, who all emphasised measurement in quantum mechanics, the statistical nature of our knowledge of reality, and philosophical speculation about the role of the observer. 

Quantum mechanics has since been applied to many disciplines, such as quantum chemistry, quantum electronics, quantum optics, and quantum information science. Much 19th century physics has been re-evaluated as the "classical limit" of quantum mechanics. It continues to develop as the foundation of quantum field theory, string theory, and quantum gravity theories.

11 Could the puzzles raised by Quantum Physics be a clue to God’s existence?

One of the discoveries of quantum physics is that it is physically impossible to know both the position and the momentum of a particle at the same time. The more precisely one is known, the less precise the measurement of the other is. People who look for mysticism in quantum physics will refer to the effects of measurement (such as in the double slit experiment) and assert that it's conscious observation which is determining the nature of matter, and therefore this is evidence that a conscious entity created our universe.

But in fact, the properties of quanta in experiments are not being observed by conscious observers at all. They are being measured by particle detectors. The same results occur even when there is no conscious observer present. 

John Wheeler famously said that the universe "has not really happened, it is not a phenomenon, until it has been observed to happen." Religious apologists will often quote Wheeler, not realising that his hypothesis eliminates the need for God. 

Some people say that quantum physics shows us that reality is ultimately "veiled" from us.  Scientists tend to answer questions about the connection between quantum physics and spirituality based on their religious beliefs. Here are a range of views

Name	Religious Belief	Opinion
Steven Weinberg	None	Physics reflects the "chilling impersonality" of the universe. "The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems pointless." The notion that there might be an overlap between science and spirituality is entirely mistaken.
Martin Rees	Sceptic	Has "no strong opinions" on the interpretation of quantum theory. "The implications of cosmology for these realms of thought may be profound, but diffidence prevents me from venturing into them.” We should be humble in the face of the mysteries that physics throws up.
Roger Penrose	Platonist	Believes that mathematics suggests there is a world beyond the immediate, material one. Can science explain all of life's meaning? Ask yourself this question: would one plus one equal two even if I didn't think it? The answer is yes. Would it equal two even if no-one thought it? Again, presumably, yes. Would it equal two even if the universe didn't exist? That is more tricky to contemplate, but again, there are good grounds for a positive response. Penrose, therefore, argues that there is what can be called a Platonic world beyond the material world that "contains" mathematics and other abstractions.
John Polkinghorne	Christian	Has said that science and religion are entirely compatible. The ordered universe science reveals is only what you'd expect if it was made by an orderly God. However, the two disciplines are different. He calls them "intellectual cousins". "Physics is showing the world to be both more supple and subtle, but you need to be careful," he says. If you want to understand the meaning of things you have to go beyond science, and the religious direction is, he argues, the best.
Brian Swimme	Pantheist	Author of The Universe Story: From the Primordial Flaring Forth to the Ecozoic Era. which tells the scientific story of the universe, from the Big Bang to the emergence of human consciousness, but does so as a new sacred myth. He believes that "the universe is attempting to be felt", and believes the cosmos in its entirety can be called God.

13 Using Quantum Physics to "Prove" God's Existence

Top of For

Further to sections10 and 11 above, what of the argument that the quantum mechanics Observer Effect provides evidence of God’s existence? 

13.1 What is the Observer Effect?

The observer effect (in quantum mechanics) shows that the quantum wavefunction collapses when a individual quanta (such as photons or electrons) are detected. It is a consequence of the traditional Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics.  Even passive observation of quantum phenomena (by changing the test apparatus and passively 'ruling out' all but one possibility), can actually change the measured result. The use of the word "observer" has been jumped on by people looking for evidence of the supernatural. They assume "observer" means a conscious person, and therefore they will argue that a conscious mind can directly affect reality.   In fact, the "observer" is not conscious at all. It is a detection device (like a Geiger counter). Pseudoscientists are misunderstanding the quantum wave function and the quantum measurement process.

13.2 How does this relate to God?

Various religious arguments have been associated with this effect. For example, if there has to be an observer to cause the wavefunction collapse, then there must have been an observer in place from the beginning of time (and this is God). Another argument is that God's act of observing the universe brings the universe into being. Essentially, apologists are attempting to use quantum mechanics to show God is a necessary component to the universe. There are three problems with this religious line of thinking:

(a) The observer effect has nothing to do with conscious observers - it should really be called the measurement effect. The phenomenon depends on individual atoms being measured by a non-conscious detector.  

(b) If religionists are assuming that everything is affected by observation, then an experiment to show such an effect is impossible. Or rather it's possible, but you'd never be able to observe it, so you'd never know.

(c) If God is observing everything all the time, then the observer effect would not exist. Wavefunctions would immediately collapse before we could see them, under God's gaze (assuming He is conscious. or whatever).

13.3 The Universe Can Only Exist if Observed

This idea is known as the Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP) and states that the universe itself comes into being only if someone is there to observe it.   Essentially, the universe requires some form of life present for the wavefunction to collapse in the first place, meaning that the universe itself could not exist without life in it. This puts humans in a crucial role in the existence of the universe, removing the need for God.   

13.4 The Copenhagen interpretation

This is the interpretation favoured by religious apologists.  The Copenhagen interpretation states that:

“…physical systems generally do not have definite properties prior to being measured, and quantum mechanics can only predict the probabilities that measurements will produce certain results. The act of measurement affects the system, causing the set of probabilities to reduce to only one of the possible values immediately after the measurement. This feature is known as wave function collapse.”

“There have been many objections to the Copenhagen interpretation over the years. These include: discontinuous jumps when there is an observation, the probabilistic element introduced upon observation, the subjectiveness of requiring an observer, the difficulty of defining a measuring device, and to the necessity of invoking classical physics to describe the "laboratory" in which the results are measured.”

“Alternatives to the Copenhagen interpretation include the many-worlds interpretation, the De Broglie–Bohm (pilot-wave) interpretation, and quantum decoherence theories.”

In other words, if you never look at a quantum system, then for all intents and purposes it always stays a quantum system. This is best exemplified in the thought experiment and paradox of Schroedinger's Cat, which is both alive and dead at the same time until an observation is made.

13.5 Does the observer have to be conscious?

The religious argument assumes that the observer is human, or God and that consciousness is somehow responsible for the existence of matter or even the universe. It has long been suspected that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics could be wrong about the need for a conscious act of observation and this was confirmed by an experiment using a non-conscious observer.

“The "observer" in this experiment wasn't human. Institute scientists used for this purpose a tiny but sophisticated electronic detector that can spot passing electrons. The quantum "observer's" capacity to detect electrons could be altered by changing its electrical conductivity, or the strength of the current passing through it.”

These findings have led to a popular misconception that observation by a conscious mind can directly affect reality, though this has been rejected by mainstream science. This misconception is rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process.

13.6 Is God the Observer?

It is not clear why religious apologists assume the wavefunction collapse is evidence for God. Presumably it’s because, according to quantum physics, the universe could exist as a superposition of states, unfolding simultaneously in every possible permutation, until such a time when an observer appears in one such possible universe.  When there is an act of observation, the universe collapses into that state.

John Wheeler created the Participatory Anthropic Principle based on this concept which shows there is no need for a God, because the observer (presumably humans, though it's possible some ancient observers beat us to it) is itself the creator of the universe. As described by Wheeler in a 2006 radio interview:

“We are participators in bringing into being not only the near and here but the far away and long ago. We are in this sense, participators in bringing about something of the universe in the distant past and if we have one explanation for what's happening in the distant past why should we need more?”

13.7 An All-Seeing God Doesn't Count as an Observer

God is traditionally described as being aware of everything happening in the universe, perhaps even maintaining everything that’s happening.  God is not depicted as having blind spots.

The observer effect contradicts this attribute of God because the only reason we know the effect exists is because we can compare results of observation versus no observation (as in the quantum double slit experiment). When an observer makes an observation there is one result. When an observer does not, there is a different result.

13.8 Maybe God Exists but is not an observer?

However, if an omniscient God was observing, then there would never be a "no observer" result to this experiment. The events would always unfold as if there were an observer. But instead we always get the results that quantum physics predict, so it seems that in this case, the observer provided for the experiment is the only one that matters.

Perhaps this is evidence that there is a God but He is not omniscient. But even that is unlikely, because even if God looked at the slit every, say, 1% of the time, scientific results would show that 1% of the time, we get an "observer" result when we should get a "no observer" result. But this doesn't happen.

13.9 "Reality doesn't actually exist until we measure it"

This is another common misinterpretation of quantum physics experiments. The fact is reality exists whether we measure it or not, but the nature of individual quanta is unknown until it is measured. To quote John Wheeler...

"The thing that causes people to argue about when and how the photon learns that the experimental apparatus is in a certain configuration and then changes from wave to particle to fit the demands of the experiment's configuration is the assumption that a photon had some physical form before the astronomers observed it. Either it was a wave or a particle; either it went both ways around the galaxy or only one way. Actually, quantum phenomena are neither waves nor particles but are intrinsically undefined until the moment they are measured."

14 Why do we call photons "particles" if they are electromagnetic waves?

In the classical theory of electromagnetism as developed by Maxwell, there are no photons. There are only continuous electromagnetic waves, their behaviour governed by Maxwell’s equations. These waves do have energy and momentum, by the way; there is no need for a particle concept there, the classical theory of continuous fields can deal with energy and momentum just fine.

However, Maxwell’s classical theory of electromagnetism does not fully agree with observation. The first specific observation was the photoelectric effect. The classical theory would imply that if a light is sufficiently dim, it will not dislodge electrons. In reality, even very dim light was able to dislodge electrons, provided its frequency was sufficiently high.

This led Einstein to propose that the electromagnetic field itself consists of quanta. That is to say, at any given frequency, “excitations” of the electromagnetic field come in set, countable units. This basically assigns a minimum energy level to light of a given frequency: the energy of one unit of excitation. This explanation was found to be in good agreement with observational data and eventually (though there was much scepticism initially; some even thought Einstein made a blunder) earned Einstein his sole Nobel prize.

It is these units of excitation of the electromagnetic field that we call photons. Like other quantum particles, they are not really “particles” like miniature cannonballs. Rather, they represent the smallest indivisible unit of interaction with the field. Whenever the field exchanges energy and momentum with its environment, the “particle” determines the smallest unit of energy and momentum that can be transferred. More here.

When the field interacts with the outside world, the interaction may be localised in space, confined to a small volume. In these cases, the “particles” indeed behave like particles in the conventional sense. But at other times, the field’s excitation are “spread out” over a large volume, about which there is nothing particle-like. Even so, when the field interacts with something else, its excitation will go up or down one “particle” unit at a time.