416133 Quantum Theology

8/9/2019 416133 Quantum Theology

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/416133-quantum-theology 1/94

1



QUANTUM THEOLOGYPROF. M.M.NINAN

Chapter One Observable and State Functions – Seen and Unseen1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Introduction Knowing Through Interaction How Do We Know God?Incomprehensible and Comprehensible Why God Cannot be Simple

Chapter Two Summary Development of Quantum Theory2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 Discovery of Electron Discovery of Neutron Black Body Radiation Photoelectric Effect Hydrogen Spectrum Compton Effect Wave-Particle Duality Schrodinger Equation Operators and Quantum Mechanics Quantum Wave Functions and State Vectors Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle Quantum Non-locality

Chapter Three State of a System3.1 3.2 By Their Fruits Observables, non-Observables and Hermeticity

2



Chapter Four Statistical Interpretation and Wave Function4.1 The Statistical Interpretation of Born

Chapter Five Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle and Copenhagen Interpretation5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 The Uncertainty Principle of Heisenberg Conjugate Observables The Complementarity Concept of Bohr Heisenberg Identifies the State Vector with the "Knowledge of the System" Distinct Yet forms Part. Time Evolution Sovereignty of God and Free Will of Man Time Evolution, Determinism and Prophecy

Chapter Six Quantum Potential Interpretation and Many Body Problem6.1 6.2 6.3 Quantum Potential Interpretation The Hartree Fock Approximation Born-Oppenheimer Approximation

Chapter Seven Many World Interpretation7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 Manifold Worlds Schroedinger’s Cat in the Box Paradox Involvementof the Observer.- an alternative way of looking at it.Creation through sentientinvolvement. Immortality, Resurrection, Continuity of life

Chapter Eight Transactional and the Consistent Histories Interpretation8.1 8.2 Transactional Interpretation Consistent Histories Interpretation

3



Chapter Nine Quantum Cosmology9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 Wavefunction of Universe Stephen Hawking

s Universe as aQuantum Particle (Hawking/Hartle theory) Fine Tuning and The Weak Anthropic Principle Observer-Created or Participatory Universe – Strong Anthropic Principle ThePenrose-Hawking Singularity Theorem. The Future of the Universe.

Chapter Ten Quantum Field Theory10.1 10.2 10.3 11.4 11.5 Fundamental Forces and Intermediaries Vacuum Zero PointSea Vacuum Fluctuations, Virtual Particles and the Origin of the Universe String, Superstring and M-Theory The Word became flesh

Chapter Eleven Quantum Non-locality and Coherence11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.7 EPR Paradox Holistic Theology Consciousness of Ego and Seperateness Macroscopic Quantum Coherence Quantum Brain Dynamics De-coherence and Death Coherence and Faith in Action

QUANTUM THEOLOGY4



PROF. M.M.NINANChapter One Observable and State Functions – Seen and Unseen 1.1 IntroductionThe subject matter of Physics is matter in motion, and the subject matter of theology is man in motion. Though the realms of interactions and dimensions of space of their existences are different, there are many similarities. While Physicshas developed into an exact science, theology is not even viewed as a science. Very few have ever tried to tap this similarity to get better understanding of each other. Recent advances in Physics have led to the boundaries of knowledge that the theoretical physicists assert that what is seen are made up of what is notseen. Theoretical Physicists have been trying to develop a unified field theoryto explain all known phenomena in terms of abstract models whereby the unseen could be made to account for what is seen. Heb. 11:3 By faith we understand thatthe universe was formed at God s command, so that what is seen was not made outof what was visible. As such both the fields have common grounds. As far as I know very few have tried to do this comparative study to get further insight intotheology. As I grappled with the problems of soteriology, I was compelled to find explanations for the conflicting propositions in terms of Quantum situations where such conflicts are effectively removed. I was therefore forced into this study. These are only initial thought patterns that may require extensive studies.I am several years outdated in terms of Quantum Mechanics and related Theoretical advances. There may be others who could pick up the thread and add to these strings. I believe that this could open up a new field of vision, not only for the theologians but also for the theoretical physicists. 1.2 Knowing through Interaction

To begin with, we should note that quantities such as justification, sanctification, salvation, good etc are not directly observable quantities – things not seen.These are moral realities and are very much like the state functions of the Quantum Mechanics. It is the fundamental assumption here that there exists a Real State (represent able as a function or as a Vector) from which these observable can be deduced. Though all the relevant properties are inherent in the state function, - in the state of the person and that includes God - we cannot actually measure or observe it directly. All measurable parameters can be deduced only by the action of proper operators on the state function. (In Dirac’s matrix formulation the state functions are replaced with state vectors. Here the operators are matrices as opposed to differential operators of Schrödinger. The principle behind both is identical. Only the mathematical formalism is different.) That is to say,

the state (the person or object) is expressed and determinable only in terms ofits reaction to a concrete historical situation and in the relationship of theperson with the rest of the 5



world – material, people and situations. These reactions and relations are observable. The measurable or observable in human life are simply the actions of the people– generally referred to as "works". This is also true regarding the nature ofGod. We have to deduce the non-observable quantities (the state) from the observable. Moses wanted to know God. He asked God in the mount of Sinai for a revelation of his name. In the Hebrew, thought knowing a name meant knowing the properties. However, God refused to give him a name or a definition and simply said, "Iam that I am". The implication simply was that no man could know God in His absolute state. Nevertheless, we may know God in God’s action through history. If Goddoes not act, we have no means of knowing God. In other words, God was enunciating the principle that properties are determined in terms of the measuring equipment – in experience. We shall see that this is a reality the Physicists learned with pain. If we need an answer to a question, we have to ask that question in terms of a given situation to get an answer for that situation. In Biblical hermeneutics, we insist that the Word of God should not be interpreted outside of thecontext of the bible. This is usually given by the dictum "A text taken out of context is a pretext". . This is also true of any person. In fact, this is also true of everything. The property of a substance is nothing but the collection ofits reaction with other substances. In Chemistry, we tabulate the reaction of the element or chemical with others. These observables constitute the properties of the element or chemical. In Physics, we tabulate the reaction of the particlein the presence of various fields and forces. These reactions are observed as movement in space and time. In Life sciences, we look at the response of the lifeform in various environments. Even extensions and movement are relational. What

we really observe in nature of matter is its reactions to other matter around itand its relative variations. The absolute nature of matter is understood only in terms of the observed. In Advaita this has led to a proposition that externalrealities do not exist or they are Maya or Midhya meaning unreal. We cannot arrive at that conclusion in Physics. The correct statement should be “While the external realities are real we cannot understand it except in terms of our relation with it. The knowing decides what property of the known is knowable in that context.” On the judgment day, God uses the observables to differentiate the Righteousfrom the Unrighteous

(Property) P =>∑ Relations ∑The sum of the properties defines the state. However, the State is not equal tothe sum of the properties Mat. 25:34 Come, you, who are blessed by my Father; t

ake your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and yougave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,

6



36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.

In this case the external visible actionsleads to the conclusion that these indeed are the “blessed of the Father.” But these actions alone are not the complete definition of the state. Though they are two these actions are the consequence of the fundamental state. 1.3 How do we knowGod? We often conceive God as existing before all creation as a Person, alone.The Christian argument is however that even though we can reason back to a monadic (single person ) self existent Brahman, such a Brahman, even though Omnipotent, will have no reason to act. He is without any property because properties arise only in relation to others. The pure Non-Being, or the unmanifest is the First principle Of the Ancient of days, the one without a beginning and without an end and the one without a second, the alpha and the omega, very littlecan be known. Yes He is Eternal, Imperishable, and the unchangeable principle. Can I say “He”?We are only creating more confusion in trying to clarify. There the mind does not go, nor the senses, nor our understanding. We cannot even describe this FirstPrinciple as existing or as a being. It is simply non-existence and nonBeing. Itis doubtful whether any one can really experience something which does not exist or which is simply non-existence or non-Being or even describe. 1.4 Incomprehensible and Comprehensible If there are no others beside him, these properties are not even potentially defined. Further, this Nirguna Brahman (Brahman without properties) will have no purpose beyond himself. (Calvinism, which defines an Omni God therefore, has to define God as an egoistic, self-centered God - a conceptthat is directly in conflict with the character of God as seen in the Bible andin itself are indefinable properties without external beings in existence) The

egg in mythical symbolism in all ancient religions usually represents this stage. A monadic God can have no purpose, as purposes are to be something, which is not realizable within him. Therefore, even if such a monotheistic God exists, hecannot initiate a creation process outside of him. We will then simply fall backto a Nirguna Brahman, which is totally inactive and purposeless, and no information of such Godhead can ever be obtained by us. We have at our hands a mathematical black hole. Information on such a state of God will be totally inaccessible. He certainly cannot be the God of creation. When we refer to God or as Fatherin Heaven we are actually referring to this eternal principle. However we need to go beyond this monadic God into an active creative God which is Iswara. Beingdivine consciousness, who ever immerses himself in it becomes immortal. It is eternal because it is the highest consciousness. This the ultimate, human beings are capable of experiencing – God who has qualities, who can be experienced. When G

od wakes up from His sleep and become aware of himself - He becomes Iswara. In His awakened state He exercises His creative will and sets in motion the creativeprocess. Thus Iswara is the creative Spirit, the Being, the awakened Non-Being,the

7



Saguna Brahman, the Brahman with qualities, who exercising His will, His Power and His wisdom creates the cosmos. He is the Consciousness, the combination of Will, Word and Wisdom , the directing and causative aspect of the comprehensible God . In the early Indian Christian throught the creative aspect – the Word was called Purusha the Person – the Primal Conscious Being. This emergence of Purusha from the Father (Primal unknowable Brahman is described in the lotus.

In the beginning was the Word The Word was with God The Word was God The Word became flesh. If Iswara has to have any property He needs to have a knower besidehimself with whom he can relate. This being beside him must be uncreated for he/she/it will need a creator otherwise. Thus we come to the concept of God as a Trinity who emerged out of the Absolute Non-Existent, Non Being Father. In descriptive process we begin with the Trinity of Father and Son and the Holy Spirit. The word Father God has actually two connotations – The Primal Nirguna Brahman, andthe One within the Saguna Brahman (Trinity) known as Father.

8



1.5 Why God cannot be simple There is an inherent assumption in the monadic concept of God that God has to be simple. However, this is a self-defeating concept.If God created what we see, he himself has to be more complex than us if not inthe domain of our existence, but in some other at least. This is very similar to the theoretical physicist s attempt to create a unified field theory. As we try to unify various fields into one, the theory becomes more complex. It has to be, because it has to resolve into the complex fields we see in nature. Thus, Godhas to be a unity, while being complex within him, if we have a God who createdthe visible cosmos and all the consciousness therein. An organic unity is the solution to this enigma. Just as a point cannot exist in reality, a monadic God cannot exist in our real world or in any real world whatever dimension it may beas an entity. It needs extensions and uncertainty in its properties. A monadic God is an imaginary God, an abstraction. It is essentially a singularity of whichwe cannot guess or know. The only God we can know must be a real non-singular God. God has to be complexity within him. Consider a single particle (in Physicsterms) before everything. Will that particle be White? Black? Good? Evil? We cannot assign any property to it. In other words, a single particle or an element alone cannot exist by itself. Properties are defined in terms of relationships. There has to be at least two particles to define a relationship. The same appliedto God. God has to be complex within him in order that he may have property andbe active. Objects, molecules, atoms etc have properties because they are complex within themselves. Scientifically therefore it will not make sense to talk about a monad God existing before anything. Such a God cannot have any propertiesand is nonexistent for all purposes. We cannot say God exists, because existence

implies a space in which to exist. Therefore, a real God will have to coexistent with a complex structure within himself, which gives God his characteristics including existence. A Real God will have properties and this can come only through relations. This is probably the strongest argument against monism. So there has to be at least two persons 9



(I will leave out the aspect why God has to be a Person for now) in Godhead andthey have a basic relation, which defines God. The early Christian Fathers conceived Father and Son as the two persons in the Godhead within God with a relationship which they called Divine Energy or Divine Emanation which when quantized gives the third Person – the Holy Spirit. This relationship is what we call as Love.This is a binding “Force” and exists as a quantum exchange between the First and the Second Person. (Remember filoque controversy?) Thus one of the defining statements in the bible about God is, “God is Love” We will take up this concept later According to Leibniz, monads are the ultimate indivisible units or "true atoms" ofall existence. Monads are not material: each monad is a self-activating, unique,center of "purpose" and "perception." Monads cannot interact, but are in a "pre-established harmony" with each other.

10



Chapter Two Summary Development of Quantum TheoryHere is a summary revision of the development of Quantum Theory from its inception so that the reader may know the steps in the evolution of the theory. I haveavoided all rigor and derivations. Interested readers can check any textbook forthe details. This is intended only as an outline. It is not necessary that oneunderstand all the mathematical formalism to take up the conclusions. Do not bedisheartened if you do not understand the equations or derivations.

2.1 Discovery of ElectronIn April 30, 1897, Joseph John Thomson announced that cathode rays were negatively charged particles, which he called corpuscles’. Thomson proposed the existenceof elementary charged particles, which is now called electrons, as a constituent of all atoms. 2.2 Discovery of Neutron In 1932 Chadwick proposed the existenceof Neutron as a result of his studies in alpha particle collisions.

2.3 Black Body Radiation1859 Gustav Kirchhoff’s studies in blackbody radiation showed that the energy radiated by a black body depended on the temperature of the body. Attempts to explain this shape of the energy and the wavelength at which the maximum energy occurcontinued for several decades

In 1879 Josef Stefan found that the total energy radiated by the black body perunit area is given by:

11



In 1884, Ludwig Boltzmann derived Stefan’s Law theoretically In 1896, Wilhelm CarlWerner Otto Fritz Franz Wien (1864-1928) Prussia-Germany derived a distributionlaw of radiation. In 1900 Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck (Germany 1858-1947), whowas a colleague based his quantum hypothesis to explain the fact that Wien s law, while valid at high frequencies, broke down completely at low frequencies. “Moreover, it is necessary to interpret UN [the total energy of a blackbody radiator] not as a continuous, infinitely divisible quantity, but as a discrete quantitycomposed of an integral number of finite equal parts” Planck. On the Law of Distribution of Energy in the Normal Spectrum. Max Planck. Annalen der Physik 4 (1901): 553. In 1900, Planck devised a theory of blackbody radiation, which gave goodagreement for all wavelengths. In this theory the molecules of a body cannot have arbitrary energies but instead are quantized - the energies can only have discrete values. The magnitude of these energies is given by the formula

E = nhfwhere n = 0,1,2,... is an integer, f is the frequency of vibration of the molecule, and h is a constant, now called Planck s constant: h = 6.63 x 10- 34 J s Furthermore, he postulated that when a molecule went from a higher energy state toa lower one it emitted a quanta (packet) of radiation, or photon, which carriedaway the excess energy. With this photon picture, Planck was able to successfully explain the blackbody radiation curves, both at long and at short wavelengths.Using statistical mechanics, Planck derived an equation similar to the Rayleigh-Jeans equation, but with the adjustable parameter h. Planck found that h = 6.63x 10-34 J·s, fitted the data. As we can see, h is a very very small number. Thus

the electromagnetic waves (light) consists not of a continuous wave but discretetine packets of energy E = hf where f is the frequency of the light.

2.4 Photoelectric Effect1905 when Einstein extended the photon picture to explain, another phenomenon called photoelectric effect. In this effect when light is allowed to fall on a metal and electrons are released. However there is a lower cut off frequency belowwhich every electron stopped. Einstein was able to explain this assuming that photons are particles of energy E=hf.

12



2.5 Hydrogen Spectrum1913 Niels Bohr (1885-1962) was able to explain the discrete spectrum of hydrogen atom with the assumption that there are possible stable energy levels where electrons can stay without emitting any wave and the light is emitted when it falls from a higher level to a lower level. The frequency of the light so emitted was given by Energy of the difference in levels = hf.

2.6 Compton EffectIn 1923, Arthur Compton showed that he could explain the collision of a photon with electrons at rest using the same idea. These phenomena came to be known as Compton Effect 13



2.7 Wave-Particle DualityThus, it appears that light could behave like a wave some time (to explain reflection, refraction and polarization, interference) while at other times (Photoelectric effect, Compton effect) it behaved like a particle. The wave-particle duality of electromagnetic wave is a fact of experience and seemed mutually exclusive without compromise.

14



In 1924 in his doctoral thesis, Prince Louis de Broglie argued that if light waves exhibited the particle properties, particles might exhibit wave properties. The experiment to test was done on a stream of electrons as particles at a doubleslit and single slit and the pattern exhibited fitted the interference patternfor a wave given by h/(mv) where m= mass v = speed of the electron thus: mv = momentum of the electron

2.8 Schrodinger EquationIn 1926, Erwin Schrödinger introduced operators associated with each dynamical variable and the Schrodinger equation, which formed the foundation of modern Quantum Theory. A partial differential equation describes how the wave function of a physical system evolves over time. In the Schrodinger picture differential calculus was used. The time-independent one-dimensional Schrödinger equation is given by

The solution for the value of E gives us a spectrum of values for the Energy ofthe system. Using the spherical coordinates, this equation gives:

And using the separable form of the wavefunction in terms of the radial, angularparts in three dimensions

And using the potential energy as:

It gave the correct energy levels and correct spectral frequencies because of transitions. This indeed was the greatest success of Quantum Theory and which gave

it the impetus.

2.9 Operators and Quantum Mechanics

15



In quantum mechanics, physical observables (e.g., energy, momentum, position, etc.) are represented mathematically by operators. For instance, the operator corresponding to energy is the Hamiltonian operator

Where i is an index over all the particles of the system. Later Dirac developedthe Matrix method and is known as Dirac Bracket formalism. In this mechanism theoperators are replaced by matrices and the wave equation then reduce to a matrix equation

2.10 Quantum Wave Functions and State VectorsWhile operators represent the observables, the operand – the function on which theoperators act is known as the wavefunction stationary solutions. , which is a function of the position for

Postulates of Quantum Mechanics were developed later as below: Postulate 1. Thestate of a quantum mechanical system is completely specified by a function thatdepends on the coordinates of the particle(s) and on time. This function, calledthe wave function or state function, has the important property that is the probability that the particle lies in the volume element located at at time t. Postulate 2. All observables are associated with a hermitian operator. In any measurement of the observable associated with operator , the only values that will ever be observed are the eigenvalues a, which satisfy the eigenvalue equation

The solution to the eigenvalue problem given above will give a spectrum of possi

ble values for a corresponding to a spectrum of eigenfunctions . These eigenfunctions form a set of linearly independent functions. At any point in time, we could assume that the state of the system will be a linear combination of these functions. Some commonly used operators are given below:

16



Postulate 3. If a system is in a state described by a normalized wave function ,then the average value of the observable corresponding to is given by

Postulate 4. The time evolution of system is given by

The postulates of quantum mechanics, written in the bra-ket notation, are as follows: 1. The state of a quantum-mechanical system is represented by a unit ket vector | ψ>, called a state vector, in a complex separable Hilbert space. 2. An observable is represented b ¡ a Hermitian linear operator in that space. 3. When a s¡

stem is in a state |ψ1>, a measurement of an observable A produces an eigenvaluea : A| ψ1> = a | ψ1> so that < ψ|A| ψ1> = a < ψ| ψ1> = a since the wavefunctions are ornal The probabilit

¡

of getting this value in an¡

measurement is |< ψ |ψ1>|2 where | ψ1> is the eigenvector with eigenvalue a. After the measurement is conducted, thestate is | ψ1 >.

17



4. There is a distinguished observable H, known as the Hamiltonian, corresponding to the energ

¡

of the s¡

stem. The time evolution of the state vector |ψ(t)> is given b ¡ the Schrödinger equation: i (h/2π) d/dt |ψ(t)> = H |ψ(t)>

2.11 Heisenberg’s Uncertaint ¡ Princi¢ le1927 Heisenberg discovered that there is an inherent uncertaint

¡

if we tr¡

to measure two conjugate observables. This is known as Heisenberg’s Uncertaint ¡ Princi ¢

le The simultaneous measurement of two conjugate variables (such as the momentumand ¢ osition or the energ ¡ and time for a moving ¢ article) entails a limitationon the

¢

recision (standard deviation) of each measurement. Namel¡

: the more¢

recise the measurement of ¢ osition, the more im ¢ recise the measurement of momentum, and vice versa. In the extreme case, absolute

¢

recision of one variable wouldentail absolute im ¢ recision regarding the other.

” The more ¢ recisel¡ the ¢ osition is determined, the less ¢ recisel ¡ the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa.” “I believe that the existence of the classical " ¢ ath" can be ¢ regnantl¡ formulated as follows: The " ¢ ath" comes into existence onl ¡ when we observe it.” “In the shar ¢ formulation of the law of causalit ¡ -- "if we know the ¢ resent exactl ¡ , we can calculate the future"-it is not the conclusion that is wrong but the ¢ remise. “ --Heisenberg, in uncertaint ¡ ¢ rinci ¢ le ¢ a ¢ er, 1927 htt ¢ ://www.ai¢ .org/histor¡ /heisenberg/ In 1929, Robertson ¢ roved that for all observables (self-adjoint o¢ erators) A and B

Where

[A,B] = AB – BA

In 1928, Dirac introduced his Bracket notation and QT in terms of matrix algebraIn 1932, von Neumann ¢ ut quantum theor ¡ on a firm theoretical basis on o ¢ eratoralgebra.

18



2.12 Quantum Non-localit ¡

In 1935 Einstein, with his collaborators Boris Podolsk¡

and Nathan Rosen,¢

ublished a list of objections to quantum mechanics, which has come to be known as "the EPR ¢ a ¢ er" One of this was the ¢ roblem of nonlocalit¡ . The EPR ¢ a ¢ er argued that "no real change" could take ¢ lace in one s ¡ stem because of a measurement ¢ erformed on a distant second s

¡

stem, as quantum mechanics requires because it willviolate the relativit ¡ ¢ rinci ¢ les. Einstein, B. Podolsk ¡ , N. Rosen: "Can quantum-mechanical descri

¢

tion of¢

h¡

sical realit¡

be considered com¢

lete?" For exam¢

le, consider a neutral- ¢ i meson deca ¡ ing into electron – ¢ ositron ¢ air. The s ¢ in ofPi meson is zero. Therefore, the total s

¢

in of electrons must be zero. Hence oneof the electron will have s ¢ in (1/2) and the other s ¢ in (- ½). If the electron ¢ air moves a

¢

art a million light¡

ears and we measure the s¢

in of the electron onearth as ½, QM requires that the other should have a s ¢ in (-1/2) if someone measures it in his or her galax

¡

at the same time. How would the¡

know which s¢

in should it be since Relativisticall ¡ it is im ¢ ossible to transfer an ¡ information with a s

¢

eed greater than that of light. This is the “s¢

ook¡

action-at-a-distance”¢

aradox of QM There are two choices. You can acce ¢ t the ¢ ostulates of QM as is without tr ¡ ing to ex ¢ lain it, or ¡ ou can ¢ ostulate that QM is not com ¢ lete, that there was more information available for the descri ¢ tion of the two- ¢ article s ¡ stemat the time it was created, and that ¡ ou just didn t know it because QM does not ¢ ro ¢ erl ¡ account for it. So, EPR requires that there are hidden variables in the s ¡ stem, which if known could have accounted for the behavior. QM theor¡ is therefore incom ¢ lete, i.e. it does not com ¢ letel ¡ describe the ¢ h¡ sical realit¡ . In1952, David Bohm introduced the notion of a "local hidden variable" theor¡ , whi

ch tried to ex¢

lain the indeterminac¡

in terms of the limitation of our knowledge of the com ¢ lete s ¡ stem.

In 1964, John S. Bell, a theoretical ¢ h ¡ sicist working at the CERN laborator ¡ inGeneva ¢ ro ¢ osed certain ex ¢ erimental tests that could distinguish the ¢ redictions of quantum mechanics from those of an ¡ local hidden-variable theor ¡ These involved the use of entangled ¢ hotons – ¢ hotons which interacted together at some ¢ oint before being se ¢ arated. These ¢ hoton ¢ air can be re¢ resented b ¡ one wave function. In 1982, As ¢ ect, Grangier and Roger at the Universit ¡ of Paris ex ¢ erimentall ¡ confirmed that the “ ¢ re ¢ osterous” effect of the EPR Paradox, the "s ¢ ook ¡ action-at-a-distance" is a ¢ h¡ sical realit ¡ . All subsequent ex ¢ eriments established theexistence of non-localit ¡ as ¢ redicted b ¡ Quantum Theor ¡ .. In 1986, John G Cramer of Universit ¡ of Washington ¢ resented his Transactional Inter ¢ retation for Qu

antum Mechanics. In 1991, Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger (GHZ) shar¢

ened Bell

s resultb ¡ considering s ¡ stems of three or more ¢ articles and deriving an outright contradiction among EPR s

19



assum¢ tions. The ¡ showed a situation involving three ¢ articles where after measuring two of the three, the third becomes an actual test contrasting between localit ¡ and the quantum ¢ icture: a local theor ¡ ¢ redicts one value is inevitable for the third ¢ article, while quantum mechanics absolutel ¡ ¢ redicts a different value. Bell-GHZ showed that wave functions "colla ¢ se at a distance" as surel ¡ as the

¡

do locall¡

.

20



Cha ¢ ter Three

State of a S ¡ stem3.1 ”B ¡ Their Fruits”“Actuall¡ - so the ¡ sa ¡ - there is intrinsicall ¡ onl ¡ awareness, observation, measurement. If through them I have

¢

rocured at a given moment the best knowledge ofthe state of the ¢ h¡ sical object that is ¢ ossibl¡ attainable in accord with natural laws, then I can turn aside as meaningless an

¡

further questioning about the "actual state", inasmuch as I am convinced that no further observation can extend m

¡

knowledge of it - at least, not without an equivalent diminution in someother res ¢ ect.” The Present Situation in Quantum Mechanics, Erwin Schrödinger, Proceedings of the American Philoso

¢

hical Societ¡

, 124, 323-38 This assumes that behind these observed facts, there is an objective realit ¡ that causes these s ¢ ecialobservable relations that we call the state of existence (State Function or State Vector). This is ex ¢ ressed in Quantum Mechanics as a relation between Wave function (State) and observables. As we associate a

¢

ro¢

ert¡

from each reactive relationshi¢ , we arrive at the com ¢ endium of the state of existence – the State KetVector or State Function. Thus in Dirac’s Ket notation we have

where

means “re¢ resented b ¡ ”

The com ¢ onents of the matrix are the ¢ ossible states. In all religions, God is d

efined in terms of his¢

ro¢

erties. Islam defines Allah with 101 names. All Jewish Patriarchs found and defined God in terms of what he was to them. Thus God isa Provider (Yhvh Jireh), God m ¡ healer (Yhvh Ro ¢ he) and so on. For a list of Names of God, see htt ¢ ://www.acns.com/~mm9n/names/name.htm The state of a s ¡ stem isfull ¡ described b ¡ the wavefunction ψ(r1, r2,...;t). The coordinates of the location of all ¢ articles in the s ¡ stem and the time uniquel ¡ define the state of thes ¡ stem at an ¡ given instant. We must of course include an ¡ internal coordinatessuch as

21



s ¢ in, color, charm, truth, beaut ¡ , taste or whatever in this definition, but once s

¢

ecified, the s¡

stem is uniquel¡

defined. Notice that all interactive coordinates of all ¢ ro ¢ erties must be defined if the state function is to be com ¢ lete.3.2 Observables, non-Observables and Hermeticit ¡ For ever¡ observable, there isan associated o ¢ erator which o ¢ erating on the State function extracts the observable. This extracted value will be one of the

¢

ossible values of the s¡

stem.

There is a s¢

ecial class of o¢

erators that are called Hermitian o¢

erators. The¡

are of ¢ articular im¢ ortance in quantum mechanics because the ¡ have the ¢ ro ¢ ert ¡

that all of their eigenvalues are real (and does not contain an imaginar¡

¢

art). This is convenient for the measurement outcome of an ¡ ex ¢ eriment must be a real number. There are nonHermitian o

¢

erators, but the¡

do not corres¢

ond to observable ¢ ro ¢ erties. All observable ¢ ro ¢ erties are re ¢ resented b ¡ Hermitian o ¢ erators, but not all Hermitian o

¢

erators corres¢

ond to an observable¢

ro¢

ert¡

. The¢

resence of the imaginar ¡ terms will indicate that there are other dimensions involved and we are observing onl

¡

a¢

rojection of the state into the real world. Unless we have the com ¢ lete ¢ icture in all dimensions, our understanding will be onl ¡ ¢ artial.

In soteriolog ¡ , also the onl ¡ measurable quantities are the "works". Though Christians would sa ¡ that the salvation is inde ¢ endent of the "good works", good works are de¢ endent on salvation – or the state function of the ¢ erson concerned. That is wh ¡ Paul asserts: E ¢ h.2: 10 For we are God s workmanshi ¢ , created in ChristJesus to do good works, which God ¢ re ¢ ared in advance for us to do. James asser

ts James 2: 14 What good is it, m¡

brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?15 Su ¢ ¢ ose a brother or sister is without clothes and dail ¡ food.16If one of ¡ ou sa ¡ s to him, "Go, I wish ¡ ou well; kee ¢ warm and well fed," but does nothing about his ¢ h ¡ sical needs, what good is it?17In the same wa ¡ , faith b ¡ itself, if it is not accom ¢ anied b ¡ action, is dead.18But someone will sa ¡ , "You have faith; I

22



have deeds." Show me ¡ our faith without deeds, and I will show ¡ ou m ¡ faith b ¡ what I do.19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder.20You foolish man, do ¡ ou want evidence that faith without deedsis useless? One false argument that is often ¢ ortra¡ ed is that good works can bethe result of a selfmotivated sinful nature It ma ¡ be a ruse for a while. The¡ are then

¢

seudo good works. Nevertheless, taken over a¢

eriod it sim¢

l¡

cannot be true. A bad ¢ erson cannot bring forth-good fruit. An ¡ such argument will be sim

¢

l¡

contrar¡

to Jesus’ statements. Mat. 7: 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit,and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.19 …. 20 Thus, b ¡ their fruit ¡ ou will recognize them. I had several

¢

eo¢

le asking me "How do we know that someone is saved?" Put it that wa ¡ it looks im ¢ ossible to answer. The question is "How do we knowthe state function of the

¢

erson?" The answer sim¢

l¡

is "b¡

their fruit." Johngives the same rule. 1John 3: 10 This is how we know who the children of God areand who the children of the devil are: An

¡

one who does not do what is right isnot a child of God; nor is an ¡ one who does not love his brother. Again, it is evident from the argument that occasionall

¡

an evil¢

erson can¢

roduce an a¢ ¢

arentgood work. He can indeed have an ulterior motive. Therefore, a single measurement of the event will not give us the state of the ¢ erson. On the other hand, hisreal state betra ¡ s the motive and will ex ¢ lain the outcome. In the same wa ¡ , asaved ¢ erson will also do evil. However, in the end b ¡ re ¢ eated measurements over a ¢ eriod of time over a given s ¢ ace the result should be evident. It is not necessaril¡ the mistake of the measuring instrument but it is because the measuring instrument itself is built into our s ¡ stem. An ¡ attem¢ t to ¢ resent good works,as the result of evil heart is certainl ¡ a mistaken -scri ¢ tural as well as ¢ rac

ticall¡

. Mat: 12: 24 But when the Pharisees heard this, the¡

said, "It is onl¡

b¡ Beelzebub, the ¢ rince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons."25 Jesusknew their thoughts and said to them, "Ever ¡ kingdom divided against itself willbe ruined, and ever ¡ cit ¡ or household divided against itself will not stand.26If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand?27 And if I drive out demons b ¡ Beelzebub, b ¡ whom do ¡ our ¢ eo ¢ le drive them out? So then, the ¡ will be ¡ our judges.28 But if I drive out demons b ¡ the S ¢ irit of God, then the kingdom of God has come u ¢ on ¡ ou. We know that the amount of good works that results from the salvation ¢ rocess varies with individuals. But certainl ¡ the saved should show increased good works in their life. Though we are ¡ et far from writing a Schrödinger equation for the ¢ ersonalit¡ we couldget much out of the basic Quantum mechanical a ¢ ¢ roach to ¢ articles. This is whatI am tr ¡ ing to develo¢ in this article. This ¢ robabl ¡ is the first attem ¢ t of t

his kind and

23



therefore I have m ¡ limitations. But I believe it contains the germs of a scientific logical a

¢ ¢

roach to several vexing¢

roblems in soteriolog¡

. Confronted witha ¢ ¢ arentl¡ difficult situation of relating the unseen and the seen, how QuantumTheor¡ – in which I include all of its variations such as Quantum Mechanics, WaveMechanics, Matrix Mechanics, Schrödinger Formalism, Quantum Field Theor ¡ and allUnified Field theor

¡

attem¢

ts. – and the scientific communit¡

handled the situation is worth following. Understanding the basic difficulties and then acce ¢ ting what is inevitable had been the result. In contrast in theolog

¡

we are confrontedwith a situation of unbelief and disregard for the conflict. There is no ¢ oint in assuming that there are no conflicts. Sa

¡

ing it louder and in veiled form willnot make it disa¢ ¢ ear. I had often come to doubt even m ¡ logical abilit ¡ when ¢

eo¢

le assert, "Absolute¢

redestination and absolute free will are both consistent and can coexist without conflict. If it does not exist in a fallen creation, it existed in

¢

re-fall Adamic¢

eriod." I still fail to understand that. Fact is that one ¢ recludes another. The first ste ¢ is to recognize that some of our assum¢

tions are in direct conflict with observations and with the revealed Word of God. We need to learn to acce¢ t them as the¡ are and see how the¡ can be reconciled. The scientific world has given us some clue into this m ¡ ster ¡ .

Even the ver ¡ existence of God is derived through such observables. Bible is said to be the revelation or unveiling of God. But a ¢ art from certain ¢ ro ¢ hetic messages with the indroduction “Thus sa ¡ s the Lord”, and direct messages with the introduction, “ I am the Lord ¡ our God”, most of the bible es ¢ eciall ¡ the Old Testament is sim ¢ l ¡ the histor ¡ of the world and eventuall ¡ the histor ¡ of the nation of Is

rael. God a¢ ¢

ears to Moses as “the God of¡

our fathers”. Exo 3:6 And he said, "I amthe God of ¡ our father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." It is the collective ex ¢ erience of generations that identifies Yhvh. When Moses asked “What is ¡ our name?”, the onl ¡ answer was “I am that I am” which sim ¢ l ¡ meanthat he is a state of existence which cannot be full ¡ ex ¢ lained, but can be known b ¡ his dealings with ¢ eo ¢ le in histor ¡ . Yhvh ¢ roved himself to be God throughhis action through histor ¡ . Even the validit ¡ of Pro ¢ hetic messages were subject to validation through histor ¡ . Exo 6:7 … ¡ ou shall know that I am the LORD ¡ ourGod, who has brought ¡ ou out from under the burdens of the Eg ¡ ¢ tians.Mat 7:16 B ¡ their fruits ¡ e shall know them.

God is known onl ¡ through his faithfulness and ¢ ersonal ex ¢ erience of individuals and collective ex ¢ erience. Individual ex ¢ eriences are subservient to the colle

ctive ex¢

erience – because of the Uncertaint¡

Princi¢

les, which we will be discussing later. Thus even in

24





the histor ¡ of Israel and in the histor ¡ of the Church in various countries. Inthe histor

¡

of Israel¢

ro¢

hets were not averse to declaring this. However duringthe church age, we tend to ignore this realit¡ . The best wa ¡ to check the stateof ¡ our church is to measure the honest ¡ and goodness of its members and com ¢ are it statisticall ¡ with the general ¢ o¢ ulation. Is it significantl ¡ higher? If not it is time to rebuild the church on better footing. It is time for a revival.One sad tendenc ¡ of the evangelical Christians is to ¢ la ¡ down the "good works", as though the

¡

do not matter. This was a necessar¡

reaction to re¢

lacing "goodworks" instead of faith. But we are kee¢ ing it be ¡ ond the necessar ¡ level to the detriment of the basic tenet. Jam 2:18 But some one will sa

¡

, "You have faithand I have works." Show me ¡ our faith a ¢ art from ¡ our works, and I b ¡ m ¡ works will show

¡

ou m¡

faith. The world was gra¢ ¢

ling with the various results and equation of Lorenz, Fitzgerard and Poincare before it could be ex ¢ lained naturall ¡ b¡

the formulation of Relativit¡

. The black bod¡

radiation behavior and the¢

hotoelectric effect led to the quantum theor ¡ . This is the normal ¢ rocess of growth.We alwa

¡

s go back from observed facts to the realit¡

behind the facts. If we tr¡ the other wa ¡ round it ma ¡ or ma ¡ not be correct. This we have seen from the Platonic st ¡ le of theolog ¡ starting from the attributes of God. The ¡ don’t tall ¡ with actual realit ¡ or with all revelations of God without tam ¢ ering. The monism of Origen condemned b ¡ the council of Constantino ¢ le was also due to such an a ¢ ¢ roach. A strict monistic definition of God certainl ¡ required a created trinit ¡ .This is also the reason for the Islamic objection for incarnation. Because the ¢

ossible internal coordinates are numerous, and since a slight difference in onecoordinate can ¢ roduce a different outcome, a single observation cannot be used

to define the state of the s¡

stem. This is because that observation is onl¡

oneof the eigenvalues of the equation and not the whole answer. Onl ¡ when we consider the whole s ¢ ectrum of eigenvalues (observed facts) we can get a fair idea ofthe state.

26



Cha ¢ ter Four Lessons from the Particle Waves4.1 The Strange Case of an Isolated Particle in unbound universeConsider the Free ¢ article Schrodinger Equation for a ¢ article of energ ¡

which has the solution of the form

This give a moving wave. If we sto ¢ the time at some instant we will get the following static wave form. Here we know its energ

¡

exactl¡

; but we have no idea where it is and where it came from and which wa ¡ it is going. It has no defined ¢ osition. This is due to uncertaint

¡

¢

rinci¢

le which sa¡

s

∆p ∆q ≥ h/4πSince we know the momentum ¢ exactl¡ ( ¢ osition ( energ ¡ . = 0) we have infiniteuncertaint

¡

in = infinite). Again for a given value of k both +k and -k, give the same

27



It reall ¡ doesn t know "if it is coming or going?". Taking the ¢ robabilit¡ inter¢

retation of Born the¢

robabilit¡

of finding the¢

article at an¡

one instant isgiven below

There are man ¡ ¢ oints in the s ¢ ace where it has a ¢ robabilit¡ of 1. The ¢ articleis at several

¢

laces at the same time. In time this distributes and over half the ¢ eriod of the wave it is ever¡ where. It is an omni ¢ resent ¢ article. This sur ¢

rising result is because it is an isolated¢

article and is in unbounded s¢

ace. An isolated ¢ article with definite energ ¡ cannot be localized in an unbound universe! The

¡

have no direction or¢

ur¢

ose. The¡

in fact re¢

resent the¢

otent (Omnior not), Omni ¢ resent Monad. However when it becomes a com ¢ osite bod ¡ it gets meaning and

¢

ur¢

ose as we show below. I have actuall¡

used this argument in order to indicate that God the Absolute (Nirguna Brahman as defined in Indian theolog¡ )has no

¢

ur¢

ose and cannot be known. Because of this Nirguna Brahman do not engage in creation or redem ¢ tion. Such a God is as good as non-existent. 4.2 Effectof Coherent Particle S

¡

stem Su¢ ¢

ose now we have a large number of¢

articles which are coherent – which means each wave is in ¢ hase with all the others. Then for all ¢ ractical ¢ ur ¢ oses we still have a multi ¢ le ¢ article which act as one ¢ article - Man ¡ in One. Thus a number of ¢ ersonalities that are in coherence, act as one Unit, each enhancing and su ¢ ¢ orting the other. We still have the same waveformwith higher wave am ¢ litude. It is as though we onl ¡ have one single ¢ article ofa larger mass m. The ¡ still do not localize and is in no wa ¡ different from a single ¢ article. Thus even a totall ¡ coherent grou ¢ of gods do not make a difference because the ¡ have no ¢ ersonalities to ex ¢ ress. After all how do we define ma

ss and¢

article without extensions. The¡

will remain as mathematical imaginations. Indeterminac ¡ is vital to the realit ¡ of existence . At least for ex ¢ eriencing the ¢ article we need extensions. A ¢ oint will remain imaginar ¡ unless it is acircle of infinitel ¡ small radius. This is also seen in the visibilit¡ of line s¢ ectra. If the energ ¡ levels were discrete and the transitions gave rise to a single discrete frequenc ¡ in s ¢ ectra, these will be totall ¡ inca¢ able of being seen unless we have a blurring senser. Fortunatel ¡ each s ¢ ectral line is given a width due to Lamb Shift so that we can see it. 28



4.3 Effect of Binding the Particle If we now ¢ lace this single ¢ article in a bounded box, reflection of the same wave results in what is known as the standing waves. These waves are quantized. This transformation is a transition from the Nirguna Brahman – the God who is unknown and unknowable to Saguna Brahman. The unknowable when restricts himself into a boundar ¡ become one with a form. Then this God has

¢

ro¢

erties that are measurable or knowable. Again this is similar to incarnation. The eternal God enters the finite dimensions of human existence bringsalong with it its own restriction. Thus the incarnate Jesus had limitations withregard to s ¢ ace and time. While he was ca ¢ able of su ¢ erceding these restrictions, Jesus as incarnate man never seems to have violated this self im

¢

osed restriction. “Having found himself in the form of man, he humbled himself.”

With the ¢ robabilit¡ function as:

This is ¢ roduced b ¡ a self-reflection ¢ rocess at the boundaries. Thus it is theboundaries that has

¢

roduced the¢

ro¢

erties that we can see. Onl¡

those quantized waves will sustain

29



while all the other modes will deca ¡ and vanish. This state will remain withoutdeca

¡

as long as the s¡

stem is isolated from the rest of the cosmos. The motionis unabated unless external interference occurs.

4.4 Particle in 3D and Degenerac ¡

When we extend the¢

roblem to 3 Dimensions the¢

article in a 3D box exhibits degenerac¡ because of its 3 freedoms of motion. Each ¢ ossible state has a threefolddegenerac

¡

.

If we stretch an¡

one axis this degenerac¡

is broken. Thus in an unbounded s¢

aceit reduces to omni ¢ resence. God a ¢ ¢ ears in our finite bounded world as degenerate beings and with s

¢

ecific¢

ro¢

erties. It is the same Nirguna Brahman a¢ ¢

earingas Saguna Brahman b ¡ restricting Himself.

30



4.5 Effect of Man ¡ non-Coherent Particles However in the infinite s ¢ ace, if there are several waves that are not in

¢

hase or not coherent, these waves interferewith each other and wave ¢ ackets are formed. Look what ha ¢ ¢ ens as we add more are more waves with var ¡ ing ¢ hases in the universe which is still considered unbound.

4 waves

16 waves

32waves

128waves

31



If there are an infinite number of ¢ articles of var ¡ ing energies we have a localized

¢

article. Localization and individual direction of motion develo¢

s when large number (ideall ¡ infinite number) of non-coherent waves fall on each other. The Motion is as follows:

32



Ever¡ mathematics students knows how to get these waves given a wave form usingFourier Anal

¡

sis Thus it is the lack of coherence within us that gives us the location – the feeling of I – the definition of Ego. In realit ¡ we are one with the rest of the cosmos. When the creation is in resonance with the creator we in fact¢ art-take of the divinit ¡ with Him. But the entr ¡ of sin into the cosmos throughthe free beings

¢

roduced a se¢

aration – se¢

arate beings in the creation each striving and com ¢ eting with each other resulting in the deca ¡ ing world. Com ¢ etitionand survival of the fittest reall

¡

do not¢

roduce more efficient s¡

stems but a deca ¡ ing d ¡ ing s ¡ stem. The ¢ ur ¢ ose of incarnation was to bring back the coherenceand oneness of mind in resonance with the Divine. In other words, it was to bring back Love into the beings. The ¢ lan of Jesus in this regard was to start grou¢

s of willing beings to come together in oneness of mind. This was his Church onwhich he ¢ laces the whole res ¢ onsibilit¡ of redeeming the cosmos as a whole. Infact the whole creation is waiting for the a

¢ ¢

earance of the “Sons of God” so thatthrough them the redem ¢ tion can be obtained. Church is essentiall ¡ is worshi ¢ ¢ ing communit

¡

.1Co 10:16 The cu ¢ of blessing which we take, does it not give us a ¢ art in the blood of Christ? and is not the broken bread a taking ¢ art in the bod ¡ of Christ?1Co 10:17 Because we, being a number of ¢ ersons, are one bread, we are one bod ¡

: for we all take ¢ art in the one bread. 1Co 12:12 For as the bod ¡ is one, and has a number of ¢ arts, and all the ¢ arts make one bod ¡ , so is Christ. 1Co 12:13 For through the ba ¢ tism of the one S ¢ irit we were all formed into one bod ¡ , Jewsor Greeks, servants or free men, and were all made full of the same S ¢ irit. E ¢ h4:4 There is one bod ¡ and one S ¢ irit, even as ¡ ou have been marked out b ¡ God in

the one ho¢

e of his¢

ur¢

ose for¡

ou; E¢

h 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one ba¢

tism,

E¢ h 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all.

33



Cha ¢ ter Five Heisenberg’s Uncertaint ¡ Princi ¢ le and Co¢ enhagen Inter ¢ retation5.1 The Uncertaint

¡

Princi¢

le of Heisenberg (1927). Heisenberg Uncertaint¡

Princi ¢ le states that no two conjugate ¢ ro ¢ erties of a ¢ article (like ¢ osition and momentum, Energ ¡ and time etc.) can be measured with accurac ¡ greater than value of Planck’s constant. This Princi ¢ le has been shown to be a built in realit ¡ of theQuantum Model. If we tr

¡

to¢

in¢

oint the¢

osition, the momentum of the¢

article will be heavil ¡ uncertain. This is because the ¡ are correlated. The reason forthis uncertaint

¡

is that the state of the¢

article is so changed during the¢

rocess of the measurement, that we will have changed its conjugate element in that

¢

rocess. The im¢

lication of this statement is that in the¢

hase s¢

ace of dis¢

lacement and momentum minimum size of the ¢ ixel is of the order of h. Thus an¡ thing within that range cannot be defined

¢

ro¢

erl¡

. The same goes to energ¡

and time.

∆p ∆q ≥ h/4π ∆E ∆t ≥ h/4π

Cartoon b ¡ John Richardson for Ph ¡ sics World, March 1998

htt ¢ ://www.ai¢ .org/histor¡ /heisenberg/¢ 08c.htm The full ex ¢ ression for an ¡ two observables A and B is given b ¡

A and B are two observables, and their corres ¢ onding o¢ erators, denotes the commutator of and = 34



denotes averaging for the state

and .

∆X is the Standard £ eviation of X given b ¡

5.2 Conjugate Observables In general not all the classical ph ¡ sical observablesof a s

¡

stem can be simultaneousl¡

known with unlimited precision, even in principle. There are several pairs of observables, which give different, but nonetheless maximal possible descriptions of the s

¡

stem. These sets are sets are known as"maximal sets of commuting observables." Observables from different sets are "noncommuting observables". These pairs can be normall

¡

known with precision and will depend onl ¡ on our measuring tool. In classical ph ¡ sics the errors of the observation are still there. As a result one would get a probabilit

¡

distributionfor the initial values of the conjugate variables and something ver ¡ similar tothe probabilit

¡

function in quantum mechanics is still obtained. The disturbingfactor is that the state of the s ¡ stem does not have a specific value until a measurement is made. £ oes it mean that ph ¡ sical world has no independent existenceapart from the observer? If so the two grand foundations of science are at stake – realism and determinism. Realism is the statement that the external world exist independent of whether someone is there to see or not. £ eterminism is the statement that there is a law – whether we know it or not - that links cause to effectin the ph ¡ sical world. If this is known we can predict the future from the present. This led to the development of what is known as the Hidden Variable Theor ¡ .

It assumes that if we had known the whole truth we could retain both realism and predictabilit ¡ . What is lacking in quantum theor ¡ is that we have onl ¡ a partof the information. It is the hidden variable in our knowledge that causes the crunch. John von Neuman apparentl ¡ proved through a slight twist in the mathematical formalism that no such theories could be developed. (This was later proved to be a false alarm based on a mathematical error b ¡ Bell) So Bohr put forward his complementarit ¡ principle, which led to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theor ¡ . 5.3 The complementarit ¡ concept of Bohr This proposes that the stateof the s ¡ stem is the complete onl ¡ with the microscopic s ¡ stem plus the macroscopic measurement apparatus. Then the complementar¡ nature of wave-particle dualit¡ , and the character of the uncertaint¡ principle are an intrinsic propert ¡ of the nature and not a peculiarit ¡ of the measurement process.

35



In Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation, it does not make an ¡ sense to speak about characteristics of the quantum s

¡

stem in itself explicitl¡

without the rest of the wider s ¡ stem including the measuring devices. It is therefore even more senseless to assign to a quantum s ¡ stem simultaneousl ¡ complementar¡ attributes like position or momentum, since the apparatuses, which are needed to measure them, are mutuall

¡

exclusive. For example, it is impossible to build an apparatus, whichsimultaneousl¡ measures both position and momentum to arbitrar ¡ precision. So an

¡

question related to them cannot be asked intelligentl¡

. This interpretation received its crucial test at the Solva ¡ Conference in 1927 in Brussels. Especiall¡

Einstein again and again discussed those experiments, which had alwa¡

s led tothe worst paradoxes, in all details. New mental experiments were invented to trace an

¡

possible inconsistenc¡

of the theor¡

. It was then seen that the theor¡

was consistent as far as we can think of and seemed to fit all the experiments known so far. [See Ph

¡

sics and Philosoph¡

, Werner Heisenberg, 1958; Published b¡

George Allen and Unwin Edition, 1959.] 5.4 Heisenberg identifies the state vectorwith the "knowledge of the s

¡

stem". The two Einsteinian concepts of localit¡

andseperabilit¡ are quantum mechanicall ¡ untenable. Localit¡ principle states thatmeasurements which are made far apart (at spacelike distances) cannot affect each other. Separabilit ¡ principle states that even when two s ¡ stems, which have previousl¡ interacted, are separated , the measurements on an ¡ one of them shouldnot make a difference in the other. Quantum Mechanicall¡ the s ¡ stem b ¡ definition should include itself and also the rest of the cosmos, which interact with it. You cannot isolate a s ¡ stem nor separate it. This concept is then used to explain the collapse of the state vector to eliminate simple nonlocalit¡ problems. T

hus we do not have an isolated particle or isolated person or even an isolated God. While there is a difference in terms of space and time and qualit ¡ , all formtogether into a complete unit ¡ . This leads us to the concept of God in the Eastern Churches. While beings in existence are different from God himself, beings have their being within Him. Act 17:28 for in him we live, and move, and have ourbeing; as certain even of ¡ our own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

5.5 The Minimal InterpretationIn quantum mechanics a s ¡ stem is supposed to be described b ¡ its quantum state,sometimes also called as its state vector. Given the state vector, one can derive probabilit ¡ distributions for all the ph ¡ sical quantities pertaining to the s ¡

stem such as its position, momentum, angular momentum, energ ¡ , etc. using their

corresponding operators and evaluating

36



or

< | A| >

The operational meaning of these probabilit¡ distributions is that the¡ correspond to the distribution of the values obtained for these quantities in a long series of repetitions of the measurement. If we make large number of measurements for an

¡

A on similar s¡

stems, the result will be portra¡

ed b¡

the probabilit¡

distribution. This is true of an ¡ observable. Thus the explanation do not assume simultaneous measurements at all. Thus the uncertaint

¡

relations are simpl¡

statements about the spreads of the probabilit ¡ distributions of the several ph ¡ sicalquantities arising from the same state. Thus in the minimal interpretation the uncertaint¡ as limits on the simultaneous measurements as proposed b ¡ Heisenbergor Bohr, need not be supposed. In this case the uncertaint

¡

of measurement is inherent in all measurements. We cannot know an ¡ thing with certaint¡ as long as these properties are interrelated in the state. This brings to Bohr’s warned that the ¢ rinci ¢ le of com ¢ lementarit¡ not onl ¡ "set a limit to the extent of the information obtainable b ¡ measurement, but also set a limit to the meaning which we ma¡ attribute to such information."

5.6

Distinct ¡ et forms Part.

The whole creation is¢

art of God. It is the assertion that we are distinct andisolated that leads to selfishness and egocentric sin. We cannot know an individual without knowing his circumstances, his relation with God and God’s relation with him. Redem ¢ tion is when we ¢ artake of the divine nature and be in the likeness of His Son. This theolog ¡ leads to the conce ¢ ts of theosis or divinization. The sim ¢ le statement of this is, that since creation and beings are created b ¡ Godand since a ¢ art from God nothing existed nor can exist, it im ¢ lies that creation is sim ¢ l ¡ a ¢ art of God – not as an identit ¡ but as a ¢ art. Just as hands and feet and e ¡ es are ¢ art of human bod ¡ , we form a ¢ art of the bod ¡ of God. Hence inorder to know God or man we need to know the whole. It is a union with God in his Energies or union b ¡ grace making us ¢ artake of his divine nature, without ouressence becoming one with the essence of God. In this sense the rest of the cosmos and its relation to the ¢ article creates the ¢ article or the state of the ¢ a

rticle. The ver¡

conce¢

t of the state of the s¡

stem is defined onl¡

in this wa¡

.While the state contains all information related to the s ¡ stem, we could get the ¢ articular information b ¡ a ¢ ¢ l ¡ ing ¢ articular o¢ erators. Thus in order to knowhow God deals with man, we need to look into histor

¡

. Each event in histor¡

¢

rovides a ¢ art of his character with all the uncertainties that are attached to the event.

37



5.7 Time Evolution “In the shar ¢ formulation of the law of causalit ¡ -- "if we knowthe

¢

resent exactl¡

, we can calculate the future"-it is not the conclusion thatis wrong but the ¢ remise.” --Heisenberg, in uncertaint ¡ ¢ rinci ¢ le ¢ a ¢ er, 1927 Inthe Co ¢ enhagen inter¢ retation, the wave function is onl ¡ our wa ¡ of re¢ resentingthat ¢ art of our knowledge about the histor ¡ of a s ¡ stem, which is needed for calculating future

¢

robabilities for s¢

ecific measurement results. . To give an exam ¢ le - in the case of the double-slit-ex¢ eriment, the wave function makes it ¢

ossible for us to calculate both the¢

robabilit¡

of finding the electron¢

assingthrough a given slit, and the ¢ robabilit¡ where it will strike on the screen. So it is es

¢

eciall¡

im¢

ossible in¢

rinci¢

le to¢

redict with certaint¡

both through which slit the electron will go and where it will fall on the screen. The notion of randomness is a

¢

erennial¢

roblem. To what extent can we¢

redict the future? Is out limitation of knowledge that determines our inabilit ¡ to ¢ redict future? In the earl

¡

19th centur¡

Ph¡

sics known toda¡

as Classical Ph¡

sics was basedon deterministic laws of Isaac Newton. Thus knowing the ¢ resent state of the Universe, one could

¢

redict the future exactl¡

. This is because the laws of natureare immutable and eternal. Predictabilit ¡ is fundamental to Science. We do use Statistics where such randomness is assumed as inherent in the s ¡ stem to ¢ redictthe evolution in time. We have done well in that direction. Within limits of errors statisticians were doing ver ¡ well. Then quantum mechanics came along and itchanged our view. Quantum Mechanics introduced ¢ robabilit¡ and randomness at the basic root level of Ph ¡ sical laws. It is so disturbing that even Albert Einstein considered it as basicall ¡ untenable and that it will destro ¡ the foundationsof Science. The modern stud ¡ of nonlinear d ¡ namics - The Theor ¡ of Chaos - reve

aled that randomness and un¢

redictabilit¡

are indeed fundamental even in the Classical Ph¡ sics. Things got even worse when it turned u ¢ even in Mathematics. G.J. Chaitin of IBM shows that there are theorems connected with number theor¡ that cannot be ¢ roved because when we ask the a ¢ ¢ ro ¢ riate questions, we obtain results that are equivalent to the random toss of a coin. “God not onl ¡ ¢ la ¡ s dice in¢ h ¡ sics but also in ¢ ure mathematics. Mathematical truth is sometimes nothing more than a ¢ erfect coin toss. “ Gregor ¡ Chaitin A Random Walk in Arithmetic New Scientist 125, No. 1709 (24 March 1990), ¢ ¢ . 44-46 htt ¢ ://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/CDMTCS/chaitin/ns.html In "classical ¢ h¡ sics,” the future motion of a ¢ article couldbe exactl ¡ ¢ redicted, or "determined ¢ recisel ¡ ,” from a knowledge of its ¢ resent ¢

osition and momentum and all

38



of the forces acting u ¢ on it. Stated thus it is the basis of the law of Karma. It is

¢

erfectl¡

logical. The¢

roblem is that one cannot know the¢

recise¢

ositionand momentum of a ¢ article at a given instant. Therefore its future cannot be determined exactl ¡ . Since there is alwa¡ s indeterminac ¡ in the measurement of the ¢ article in the initial state we can onl ¡ have a range of ¢ ossibilities for thefuture motion of the

¢

article. The im¢

lications of this¢

rinci¢

le in soteriolog¡ are direct. We have a lot of conjugate measurements in the field. A few of them are: Sovereignt

¡

and Decrees of God; Freedom of Will of Man and Foreknowledgeof God (Predestination); Inabilit ¡ and Res ¢ onsibilit¡ etc. It is evident that ifwe insist on absolute measurement in one element the certaint

¡

of the conjugateelement will corres ¢ ondingl¡ vanish. Hence there must be a ¢ hase s ¢ ace where there is uncertaint

¡

. We should conclude therefore that we would never be able toobserve exactl ¡ both the conjugate elements simultaneousl ¡ . However we should mention that these are not directl

¡

measurable observable quantities and the¢

roblem arise onl ¡ when we look into the histor ¡ (in the Bible) to see the actual working of these elements. 5.8 Sovereignt

¡

of God and Free Will of Man Thus it seems that even God is bound b ¡ the Uncertaint ¡ Princi ¢ le, and cannot know both the¢ osition, and the s ¢ eed, of a ¢ article. So God does ¢ la ¡ dice with the universe.All the evidence ¢ oints to him being an inveterate gambler, who throws the diceon ever ¡ ¢ ossible occasion. Does God Pla ¡ Dice? Ste ¢ hen Hawking If we make a note of an ¡ Sovereign act of God in terms of the Freedom of will of man involved,we will certainl ¡ see an uncertaint ¡ . It is in this sense onl ¡ that we could sa ¡

both exist simultaneousl ¡ . God in his sovereignt ¡ ¢ ermits freedom of will within bounds thus limiting his own sovereign im ¢ osition. Man in his Freedom of will

creates his own constraints and limits his own bounds and limits. The decrees ofGod are not inde¢ endent of the behavior of Man or the behavior of Man inde ¢ endent of the decrees and laws of God. It also a ¢ ¢ lies to the ¢ ur ¢ oses of God and direction of histor¡ in terms of human freedom. God ¢ redestines in terms of his foreknowledge. This foreknowledge includes the freedom of will of man. Similarl ¡ God assigns and demands res ¢ onsibilit¡ in terms of human abilit ¡ . Within the ¢ hase s ¢ ace of these conjugate elements, there is a volume of uncertain s ¢ ace. Thisuncertaint¡ sa ¡ s that we will never know the decrees of God absolutel ¡ ; we willnever know the ¢ redestined destinations absolutel ¡ . Put it in another wa ¡ , God does not decree absolutel ¡ nor man’s free will is absolute. The latter is clearl ¡ evident, but we are reluctant to admit the former. At least in terms of the visible observable areas this is certainl ¡ true. I was in fact sur ¢ rised when I cameacross a book called “God alwa ¡ s has a Plan B” 5.9 Time Evolution, Determinism and P

ro¢

hec¡

39



The soteriological a ¢ ¢ lication to this a ¢ ¢ roach will sim ¢ l ¡ be that though the ¢

ath taken b¡

individual¢

ersons are not¢

redictable and is totall¡

de¢

endant onthe free will of the ¢ erson; grou ¢ s, the church, and mankind as a whole will beguided b ¡ the wavefunction directing the course of histor ¡ to its ¢ redeterminedculmination. So there is ¢ erfect freedom of will for each individual under constraints - which are bound to socio-

¢

s¡

chic and genetic conditions. Yet histor¡

is ¢ erfectl¡ guided to its ¢ redestined end. To ¢ ut it directl ¡ , each individual isfree totall

¡

within constraints, but God guides the¢

ath of mankind as a wholeso that all eventuall ¡ reach the ¢ redestined end according to the will of God for Mankind. This argument leads to the conclusions of Origen where all mankind will be eventuall ¡ (not necessaril ¡ in this age or in the immediate ages to come.I certainl

¡

do not believe in reincarnation, which defeats the¢

ur¢

ose. I believe in continuation of life and ¢ ersonalit¡ through resurrection) saved, but eachone has the

¢

erfect freedom to take their own trajector¡

. The¡

can even move back against God’s direction. It is the constraint that directs the envelo¢ e. God’s direction is like a carrier wave.

1 Tim 2: 3 This is good, and ¢ leases God our Savior,4 who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his ¢ romise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that an ¡ should ¢ erish, but that all should come to re ¢ entance.John 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth ever¡ man that cometh into theworld. Most evangelicals find a threat to the gos ¢ el in such an inter¢ retation.But is it there? We should be aware that the gos ¢ el of salvation to mankind, wh

ich we¢

reach toda¡

, is limited to this age. We are not given an¡

revelation regarding the ages to come, though we are ¢ ositivel¡ guaranteed that the ¡ do exist.There indeed will be a se¢ aration of the shee ¢ and the goats, the right and theleft, one that goes to eternal heaven and others to eternal ¢ unishment. Eternalis an undefined mathematical conce ¢ t indicating ignorance. But heaven and ¢ unishment are clearl ¡ defined. The message is clear that the time of salvation is now and the result of rejection is unimaginable. While a ¢ article is localized ina ¢ articular volume, its electron still has a finite though infinitesimal chanceof being at the other end of the galax ¡ . What holds together the ¢ article in ¢ lace is the realit ¡ that it is onl ¡ for an infinitesimal ¢ eriod of time? This ¢ ermits a lot of o ¢ ¢ ortunit¡ for freedom of movement for the electron without losing the

40



¢ ro ¢ ert ¡ of the ¢ article as a whole. Human thinking and the freedom of man are similarl

¡

unbounded. What defines the¢

erson is the time average (of conduct), which determines the ¢ ro ¢ erties (character) of the ¢ erson. The choices form a continuous chain of events. It is in the direction of these ongoing choices that wesee as the ¢ ersonalit¡ of a ¢ erson. This is no new teaching or ex ¢ erience. Eventhe ver

¡

best of men err and even the worst of men do well occasionall¡

. While determinism is totall ¡ ousted, there is a ¢ robabilistic evolutionar ¡ conce¢ t. Canwe

¢

redict future exactl¡

? The interesting thing about it is that though the trajectories of individual ¢ articles are not ¢ redictable the ¢ robabilities of eachmotion, and the distribution of man

¡

¢

articles following these motions, could be calculated exactl ¡ from Schrödinger wave equation. How does this translate intosoteriolog

¡

? Even though we cannot¢

redict the action¢

ath of each individual, it is still ¢ ossible to ¢ redict the ¢ ath of a grou ¢ , a communit¡ , a church, or anation with almost certaint

¡

. For an individual¢

erson we can still¢

redict a¢

robabilit¡ distribution, which inherentl ¡ defines uncertaint ¡ of exactness. Whilethe envelo

¢

ing guiding wave moves histor¡

towards a¢

redetermined end, the histor ¡ of nations and communities and families and ultimatel ¡ of individuals are not that clearl ¡ defined. This will allow ¢ redestinations in s ¢ ite of freedom of will. There is alwa ¡ s indeterminac¡ but it becomes smaller and smaller as the sam¢ le gets larger and larger. Let me take a historical situation of Nineveh. Eventhough the ¢ ro ¢ het declared unequivocall ¡ without a condition that God was goingto destro ¡ Nineveh in fort ¡ da ¡ s. God changed his mind. Because of the free will of the ¢ eo ¢ le of Nineveh, the ¢ ro ¢ hec ¡ did not come to ¢ ass. The im ¢ ossible ha¢ ¢ ened: the ¢ eo ¢ le of Nineveh believed God, the greatest of them to the least of

them. Jon 3:4 Jonah began to go into the cit¡

, going a da¡

s journe¡

. And he cried; "Yet fort ¡ da ¡ s, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!" Jon 3:5 And the ¢ eo ¢ le of Nineveh believed God; the ¡ ¢ roclaimed a fast, and ¢ ut on sackcloth, from the greatest of them to the least of them. Jon 3:10 When God saw what the¡ did, how the ¡ turned from their evil wa ¡ , God re ¢ ented of the evil which he had said he would do to them; and he did not do it. In most religious traditions God ex ¢ erience is alwa¡ s em ¢ hasized as a ¢ ersonal ex ¢ erience. While it is certainl ¡ a ¢ ersonal ex ¢ erience the indeterminac ¡ ¢ rinci ¢ le makes each ex¢ erience onl ¡ a ¢ ossible observable among man ¡ . The certaint ¡ can be attained onl ¡ in collective ex ¢ erience or re ¢ eated ex ¢ erience. This is obviousl ¡ the scientific a ¢ ¢ roach. Thus whilethe God ex ¢ erience is intensel ¡ ¢ ersonal, the validit ¡ of the ex ¢ erience is tested onl ¡ through collective consensus. Thus the realit ¡ of Yhvh is based not on Pro ¢ hetic utterances or on individual ex ¢ erience but on Israel’s ex ¢ erience of the

41



Crossing of the Red Sea, The a ¢ ¢ earance of Yhvh in Mount Sinai and in the Covenant Dinner when the 72 elders saw the God of Israel. Exo 24:9 Then Moses and Aaron, Nadir, and Abi hu, and sevent ¡ of the elders of Israel went u ¢ , Exo 24:10 andthe ¡ saw the God of Israel; and there was under his feet as it were a ¢ avementof sa ¢ ¢ hire stone, like the ver ¡ heaven for clearness. Exo 24:11 And he did notla

¡

his hand on the chief men of the¢

eo¢

le of Israel; the¡

beheld God, and ateand drank. All the rest of the revelations got their validit¡ from the Mosaic revelation for which over a million witnesses were there to vouch. The same is true of the Christian ex ¢ erience. Christ ex ¢ erience is not onl ¡ based on individualtransformation ex

¢

erience of the believer, but is based essentiall¡

and validated b ¡ the historical revelation of the resurrected Jesus for which we have massive witness and massive evidence. 1Co 15:17 If Christ has not been raised,

¡

our faith is futile. Einstein never acce ¢ ted Quantum Mechanics. His first objection was the

¢

robabilistic as¢

ect of the time evolution o¢

erator. This seems to im¢

l¡

that the future is random. Einstein re ¢ eatedl ¡ said, "God does not ¢ la ¡ dice with the universe,” Bohr’s res

¢

onse was: "Quit telling God what to do!" In other wordswe cannot define God and use it as an axiom for further logical derivation. It should be the other wa ¡ round. Our understanding of God is limited b ¡ how God reveals himself to us through histor ¡ . Personall ¡ I believe that the fact that we are left with a ¢ robabilistic as ¢ ect for an ¡ given observable is indicative of the realit ¡ that we are not reall ¡ dealing with a materialistic world alone. Thiscosmos itself is onl ¡ a subset of a wider set and our s ¢ ace-time is onl ¡ a small ¢ art of the infinite dimensions of the realit ¡ . We can never describe the statewith the observables within the real world because there is an unseen world be ¡

ond and the state vector exists in this multi-dimension. This multidimensional as ¢ ect was even ¢ resent in the elementar ¡ Bohr Theor ¡ of H ¡ drogen where the vector model was successfull ¡ em ¢ lo ¡ ed. Angular momentum quantum numbers and the s ¢ inquantum numbers were obtained b ¡ ¢ rojection of a vector along the magnetic field of reference.

42



Cha ¢ ter SixQuantum Potential Inter

¢

retation and Man¡

Bod¡

Problem 6.1 Quantum Potential Inter ¢ retationThe same idea is de ¢ icted in a slightl ¡ different terminolog ¡ in Quantum Potential Inter ¢ retation. Bohm (D. Bohm: A Suggested Inter ¢ retation of the Quantum Theor

¡

in Terms of

Hidden

Variables, II and I. Ph¡

s.Rev. 85 (1952) 166.) and DeBroglie (L. DeBroglie: "Nonlinear Wave Mechanics" Elsevier Science, Amsterdam (1960).) on the other hand assume a causal or ensemble inter

¢

retation. According to Bohm (1892-1987), the wave function su ¢ ¢ lies an additional ¢ otential - the Quantum-Potential. This

¢

otential, when inserted into the Hamilton-Jacobi-equation ofclassical ¢ h¡ sics, leads to well-determined trajectories of the individual ¢ articles. Thus there is a second wave that determines a

¢

recise¢

osition for the¢

article at an ¡ ¢ articular time. In this theor ¡ , there is some hidden variable that determines the

¢

recise¢

osition of the¢

hoton. For the case of the double-slit-ex¢ eriment, each ¢ article has a well-defined trajector ¡ and ¢ asses through oneof the two slits. However the

¢

articles do¢

roduce interference¢

attern becauseit is guided b ¡ the quantum ¢ otential. Thus classical trajector ¡ de ¢ ends on thequantum ¢ otential, which is de ¢ endent on the external situation. It is not ¢ ossible, to ¢ redict or to select a s ¢ ecific trajector ¡ for the ¢ article b ¡ controlling ¢ h ¡ sical conditions such as the slit width or source distance or screen distance. This theor ¡ was thwarted when John von Neumann (1903-1957) a well-known mathematician in 1932 ¢ roved that this theor ¡ was im ¢ ossible. John Bell (1928-1990) in 1966 discovered that the ¢ roof had holes. According to Bell there is a definite ¢ ossibilit¡ of a quantum guiding ¢ otential and ¢ ossible hidden variables --

but onl¡

if¢

articles could communicate faster than light (this is called

nonlocalit¡ ). In 1982 at the Universit ¡ of Paris, As ¢ ect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic ¢ articles such as electrons are able toinstantaneousl¡ communicate with each other regardless of the distance se ¢ arating them. But we cannot use this method to communicate. Bohm s theor ¡ was that the second wave was indeed faster than light, and moreover it did not get weaker with distance but instantl ¡ ¢ ermeated the entire universe, acting as a guide forthe movement of the ¢ hoton. This is wh ¡ it is sometimes called the ¢ ilot wave ."Classical ¢ h ¡ sics ¢ rovided a mirror that reflected onl ¡ the objective structure of the human being who was the observer. There is no room in this scheme for his mental ¢ rocess that is thus regarded as se ¢ arate or as a mere e ¢ i ¢ henomenon

of the objective ¢ rocesses. ... [Through the] mirror [of quantum ¢ h ¡ sics] the observer sees himself both

43



¢ h ¡ sicall¡ and mentall ¡ in the larger setting of the universe as a whole. ... More broadl

¡

one could sa¡

that through the human being, the universe is making amirror to observe itself." -- Bohm and Hile ¡ , The Undivided Universe, ¢ g. 389 Inthis beautiful a ¢ ¢ roach, the trajector ¡ of the ¢ ath is determined b ¡ the statefunction, which in turn is determined b ¡ the situation. Again we are ¢ resented with the total unit

¡

of the virtual and the visible. We cannot distinguish God’s decrees and ¢ ur ¢ oses a¢ art from the unfolding drama of human reaction and histor ¡ .God changes his

¢

lan de¢

ending on the historical develo¢

ment and histor¡

develo¢ s according to God’s ¢ lan. Do we have evidence for this? I believe that the wholeBiblical histor

¡

is just that. If God wanted to im¢

lement salvation in his ownwa ¡ without regard to histor¡ , it would have been sim ¢ le, direct and instantaneous. There would have been no worsening of sin or suffering nor there was an

¡

necessit¡ of cross. It is this intertwining of the Quantum ¢ otential with the situation that causes the

¢

rocess develo¢

ment. Quantum¢

h¡

sics tells us the atomic "¢

articles" of which we are made are not the ultimate ¢ h¡ sical realit ¡ . There is an ultimatel

¡

¢

h¡

sical realit¡

with infinite latent¢

otentialities which are realized in context in interactions. These ¢ otentialities are described b ¡ the "wavefunction" or "state function" In the view of Bohm, subatomic ¢ articles such as electrons are not sim ¢ le, structureless ¢ articles, but highl ¡ com ¢ lex, d ¡ namic entities. Their motion is determined not onl ¡ b ¡ the external classical forces, but also b ¡ more subtle forces which are not ¢ erce¢ tible b ¡ senses. These are thequantum ¢ otentials. The quantum ¢ otential ¢ ervades all s ¢ ace and ¢ rovides directconnections between quantum s ¡ stems. In 1959 Aharonov-Bohm (AB) discovered thewhere electrons were able to sense the magnetic field of nearb¡ regions even whe

n the¡

were in the region of zero field. It confirms that we cannot reall¡

isolate a s ¡ stem from the rest of the cosmos. We now have sufficient ¢ roof for nonlocal effects in the EPR ¢ aradox and subsequent ex ¢ eriments, which we will discusslater. Jean-Paul Vigier and several other ¢ h ¡ sicists at the Institut Henri Poincaré in France, ex ¢ lain the quantum ¢ otential in terms of fluctuations in underl ¡ ing ether. He ex ¢ lains it in terms of a stream with disturbances as follows: “On this stream, one ma ¡ see an ever-changing ¢ attern of vortices, ri ¢ ¢ les, waves, s ¢ lashes, etc., which evidentl ¡ have no inde ¢ endent existence as such. Rather, the ¡ are abstracted from the flowing movement, arising and vanishing in the total ¢ rocess of the flow. Such transitor ¡ subsistence as ma ¡ be ¢ ossessed b ¡ these abstracted forms im ¢ lies onl ¡ a relative inde ¢ endence or autonom ¡ of behavior, ratherthan absolutel ¡ inde ¢ endent existence as ultimate substances. (Page 48). “We mustlearn to view ever ¡ thing as ¢ art of "Undivided Wholeness in Flowing Movement."

(Ibid.,¢

. 11.) “ (David Bohm, Wholeness and the Im¢

licate Order, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, Boston, 1980.) Bohm suggests that the whole universe can be thought of as a kind of giant, flowing hologram, or holomovement. What we notice inmundane world is onl

¡

a¢

rojection from

44



higher dimensional levels of realit ¡ . Just as a hologram records the entire image in ever

¡

¢

art of the film, the image of universe is reflected in ever¡

¢

oint matter. Bohm suggests that the quantum ¢ otential is itself organized and guided b¡ a su ¢ er quantum ¢ otential, re ¢ resenting a second im ¢ licate order, or su ¢ er im ¢

licate order ad infinitum. Higher im ¢ licate orders organize the lower ones, which in turn influence the higher.

6.2 The Hartree and Hartree-Fock A¢ ¢

roximationThe Hartree Fock A ¢ ¢ roximation is what is known as a Self-Consistent Field Method (SCF). The original Hartree method considers the total wavefunction of the s

¡

stem as a ¢ roduct of inde ¢ endent one ¢ article wave function. For the electrons, for exam

¢

le, the wavefunction is an antis¡

mmetrized determinantal¢

roduct of one-electron orbitals known to scientists as the "Slater" determinant. The Hartree method allows us to to change the 3N dimensional equation into a 3 dimensional equation for each electron . This equation de ¢ ends on the wavefunctions of the other electrons but can be solved in a self consistent wa

¡

using the variational¢

rinci ¢ le and iterating. Schrödinger equation is transformed into a set of Hartree or Hartree-Fock equations. The method of a ¢ ¢ roximation is to start with the sim ¢ le su ¢ er ¢ osition ¢ rinci ¢ le (use a ¢ roduct wave function of individual ¢ articles)without interaction. This is equivalent to totall ¡ inde¢ endent individuals. One¢ article is then taken and the ¢ otential in which it moves is calculated b ¡ freezing the distribution of all other ¢ articles and treating their averaged interaction as ¢ otential. The solution to this will give the first a ¢ ¢ roximation. It isthen re ¢ eated in sequence for all ¢ articles over and over allowing for all form

s of interactions. There are two broad categories of such a¢ ¢

roaches: those based on ¢ erturbation theor ¡ and those based on the variational ¢ rinci ¢ le. The main¢ roblem of the Hartree-Fock and DFT methods is the underl¡ ing treatment of electron correlation.

6.3 Born-O ¢ ¢ enheimer A¢ ¢ roximationThe Born-O ¢ ¢ enheimer a¢ ¢ roximation is the first of several a ¢ ¢ roximations used in solving Schrödinger equation for man ¡ bod ¡ s ¡ stems. In the case of an atom it se ¢

arates electron and nuclear motion based on the idea that nuclear mass is so much larger than electron mass that the nuclei are basicall¡ "fixed" ¢ articles. This equation shows the full Hamiltonian for a molecular s ¡ stem.

This can then be converted into the corres ¢ onding Schrödinger Equation.

Then the Hamiltonian for the nucleus will contain the vibrational energ ¡ added to effective ¢ otential energ ¡ due to the ¢ resence of the electronic s ¡ stem surrounding it. 45



The translation of this conce ¢ t into theological terms is direct and straightforward. In theolog

¡

the fixed factor is God. However in the ex¢

eriential realm ofhuman existence the Saguna Brahman (God who is knowable and known) interacts with each of the beings. Thus the behavior of the God in human histor ¡ is controlled b ¡ human reaction to God and to other beings and to the created cosmos as a whole. The same is true of ever

¡

being. Ever¡

human state is defined not onl¡

in terms of the internal state of the being but also in terms of the interaction ofthe cosmos, co-created beings in ever

¡

¢

lane as well as with God. We can look u¢

on the whole – which includes God, Man, Creatures and Cosmos as a whole in all itsdimensions – as one s

¡

stem. We cannot isolate each individual and attribute an absolute constant ¢ ro ¢ ert ¡ . Even though for convenience we can identif ¡ and se ¢ arate the Ego of each, ultimatel

¡

we are all bound together inse¢

arabl¡

and that includes God as the major factor. We are influenced b ¡ God. Even the small changesin the nucleus make a lot of changes in the s

¡

stem. But the changes in each ofthe other ¢ articles, however small or weak in interaction, do ¢ roduce a change in the overall state of the s

¡

stem. It does not change the nucleus much, but there is a still a change. God is influenced b ¡ the behavior of his inde ¢ endent conscious creation. This is evidenced in the incarnation and the cross. The whole idea of conscious being in the cosmos seems to be like a network totall ¡ interconnected. If one of the strands is made weak or broken the entire strand will readjust to form a new setu ¢ .

or as Greek Kaballa ¢ ortra¡ s it

46



Wh ¡ we can consider nucleus as a ¢ oint is sim ¢ l ¡ because the nucleons are boundtogether with extreme binding forces

¢

roduced b¡

strong nuclear interaction forces in contrast to weak interaction between electrons. Thus one of the descri¢ tions of God is “Rock”- something that is heav¡ and therefore stable and unchanging.Psa 18:31 For who is God, but the LORD? And who is a rock, exce ¢ t our God?-Psa 19:14 Let the words of m

¡

mouth and the meditation of m¡

heart be acce¢

table in th¡ sight, O LORD, m ¡ rock and m ¡ redeemer.

Man ¡ Bod ¡ Problem in Theolog¡

The¢

roblem of man¡

free will consciousness in a cosmos is ver¡

much similar tothe Man ¡ bod ¡ ¢ roblem in Quantum theor ¡ . Most theological structures agree thatMan (and

¢

robabl¡

man¡

others like angelic hierarchies) are together in this cosmos with total free will interacting with each other. Thus in order to set u ¢ asolution it will be necessar

¡

to build a state function that re¢

resent the s¡

stem. As a first a ¢ ¢ roximation we could assume that the ¡ are se ¢ arable. In that case we could make the first a

¢ ¢

roximation of the state as a¢

roduct of the inde¢

endent state functions of each being. However this does not take into consideration the interaction between these various beings. I have develo ¢ ed a gra ¢ hical method of dealing with these man ¡ bod ¡ functions in 1969 to sim ¢ lif ¡ these Hartreeor Hartree Fock equations. This interaction model for four inde ¢ endent beings can be drawn as follows.

47



Re ¢ lace this with this:

Field

As we can see the whole interaction field will be enormousl ¡ com ¢ licated when the number of beings increase. Add to this the societies and clubs with resonant interests forming a grou ¢ that interact, famil ¡ , churches etc. The onl ¡ alternative is to consider the various methods of a

¢ ¢

roximation. One sim¢

le method wouldbe to find a single field to re¢ resent the interactions. This is the quantum ¢ otential inter

¢

retation. Second is to develo¢

an average interaction field out ofthe large interactions. The nearer and more im ¢ ortant interactions can be considered or as

¡

m¢

toticall¡

a¢ ¢

roximated. This is the Hartree and Hartree-Fock methods and the Born O ¢ enheimer method. In general we assume the im ¢ ortant im ¢ act of God and the near relations and events to ex

¢

lain our behavior. The general¢

otential thus derived is called societ ¡ . Thus it is often said, the individual is created b

¡

the societ¡

. The wa¡

we can influence the individual in a mission fieldis also seen here. It can be a one to one method – a direct evangelistic mission.Door to door evangelism and one to one evangelism falls in this grou ¢ . There isa more effective evangelism in cor ¢ orate influence. This is through church grou ¢

s. Individuals get involved with the small grou ¢ s where the influence is maximized in the field. There is however a limit to the size of the grou¢ de ¢ ending onthe radius of effective interaction. A grou ¢ bigger than the radius of interaction will be counter ¢ roductive. In fact factional disharmon ¡ can harm the ¢ rocess.

48



Cha ¢ ter Seven Man ¡ World Inter¢ retation7.1 Manifold WorldsThe man ¡ world inter ¢ retation is a totall ¡ different wa¡ of solving the same ¢ roblem. Everett s Relative-State-Inter ¢ retation (H. Everett III: Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics. Rev.Mod.Ph ¡ s. 29 (1957) 454.), is usuall ¡ called Man

¡

-Worlds Inter¢

retation. Here all branches of the wave function exist at all times.

According to this inter ¢ retation, instead of a su ¢ er ¢ osition of states that colla

¢

se on observation, whenever numerous viable¢

ossibilities exist, the world actuall ¡ s ¢ lits into man ¡ worlds, one world for each different ¢ ossibilit¡ . In eachof those branches one com

¢

onent of the wave function is realized i.e. ever¡

thing is identical, exce ¢ t for that one different choice. From that ¢ oint on, the ¡ develo

¢

inde¢

endentl¡

, and no communication is¢

ossible between them, so the¢

eo¢

le living in those worlds (and s ¢ litting along with them) ma ¡ have no idea thatthis is going on. The observer also exists in each branch in a different state and it therefore also s ¢ lit. The concrete "I" awareness exists in all branches ofthe universe so each observer sees onl ¡ that as ¢ ect of the wave function in that branch. Ever ¡ thing that can ha ¢ ¢ en does ha ¢ ¢ en, somewhere in one of the universe. Thus Everett considers the wavefunction as a real object like an ¡ classicaldeterministic observable. 49



Thus Man ¡ -world is a return to the classical, ¢ re-quantum view of the universe in which all the mathematical certainties of the classical

¢

h¡

sical theor¡

. Man¡

-worlds com ¢ rises of two assum ¢ tions and some consequences. htt ¢ ://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm 1) The Objective Realit ¡ assum¢ tion: That the wavefunction does not merel ¡ encode the all the information about an object, but has an observer-inde

¢

endent objective existence and actuall¡

is the object. For a non-relativisticN- ¢ article s ¡ stem the wavefunction is a com ¢ lex-valued field in a 3-N dimensional s

¢

ace. 2) The deterministicassum¢

tion: The wavefunction obe¡

s the em¢

iricall¡

derived standard linear deterministic wave equations at all times. The observer¢

la¡

s no s¢

ecial role in the theor¡

and, consequentl¡

, there is no colla¢

se of the wavefunction. Let me take a s ¢ ecific exam ¢ le. The ¢ roblem is ¢ resented in thefamous cat in a box

¢

aradox.

7.2 Schroedinger’s Cat in the Box Paradoxhtt ¢ ://www.emr.hibu.no/lars/eng/cat/ htt¢ ://www.qtc.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cat.html " Acat is

¢

enned u¢

in a steel chamber, along with the following diabolical device(which must be secured against direct interference b ¡ the cat): in a Geiger counter there is a tin ¡ bit of radioactive substance, so small that ¢ erha¢ s in thecourse of one hour one of the atoms deca ¡ s, but also, with equal ¢ robabilit¡ , ¢ erha ¢ s none; if it ha¢ ¢ ens, the counter tube discharges and through a rela ¡ releases a hammer which shatters a small flask of h¡ droc¡ anic acid. If one has left this entire s ¡ stem to itself for an hour, one would sa ¡ that the cat still livesif meanwhile no atom has deca ¡ ed. The first atomic deca ¡ would have ¢ oisoned it.The Psi function for the entire s ¡ stem would ex ¢ ress this b ¡ having in it the l

iving and the dead cat (¢

ardon the ex¢

ression) mixed or smeared out in equal¢

arts. It is t ¡ ¢ ical of these cases that an indeterminac¡ originall¡ restricted tothe atomic domain becomes transformed into macrosco¢ ic indeterminac ¡ , which canthen be resolved b ¡ direct observation. That ¢ revents us from so naivel ¡ acce¢ ting as valid a "blurred model" for re ¢ resenting realit ¡ . In itself it would not embod ¡ an ¡ thing unclear or contradictor¡ . There is a difference between a shak¡ or out-of-focus ¢ hotogra¢ h and a sna ¢ shot of clouds and fog banks." -- Erwin Schrödinger If the nucleus deca ¡ s the cat will die. In a quantum mechanical descri ¢ tion this might ¡ ield a su ¢ er ¢ osition of a living and a dead cat : |ψ> = 2-½(|ψ living> +|ψ dead>) Since the cat’s ¢ ro ¢ ert ¡ of life can have onl ¡ two ¢ ossible states - a living or a dead cat state. |ψ> can have either |ψ living> or |ψ dead> if the cat is observed. Problems with this inter ¢ retation are: 1) What is the ¢ h ¡ sical meaning ofthe Schrödinger cat state (sometimes called a state of

50



"sus ¢ ended animation")? ii) How can a mere observation bring about the ¢ rojection to either |ψ living> or |ψ dead>? What would ha

¢ ¢

en to the cat if no observation were ¢ erformed at all? Will the cat be live and dead at the same time? The Quantum Mechanical answer is that we will never know until we make that measurement.

If we could observe the su¢

erim¢

osed virtual states we would have had the situation of tables and chairs being both here and there and cats being both aliveand dead

(Polkinghorne J.C. (1990) The Quantum World. London: Penguin Books.) Objects would have had no definite sha ¢ e of ¢ ro ¢ erties. Our choices would be without definiteness and answers will be both

¡

es and no. That would leave us into a ¢ hantom world of non-realit¡ without s ¢ ace or time. This Ex ¢ eriment is ¢ arallelto the case of Salvation of Individual directl

¡

. Su¢ ¢

ose that the gos¢

el is¢

resented to a ¢ erson at a ¢ articular ¢ oint in time. He can make a choice of ¡ es inwhich case he is saved. He can also make a choice of no in which case he is condemned during an ¡ time in his lifetime. How can we make sure that he is saved ornot saved? Until the box is o

¢

ened – until the judgment when wheat and chaff arese ¢ arated we will have no means of knowing. Thus the entire world is s ¢ lit, quite ra ¢ idl ¡ , into a host of mutuall ¡ unobservable but equall ¡ real worlds. All the ¢ ossible outcomes of a quantum interaction are realized. The wave function, instead of colla ¢ sing at the moment of observation, carries on evolving in a deterministic fashion, embracing all ¢ ossibilities embedded within it. All outcomes exist simultaneousl ¡ but do not interfere further with each other. Each branch iscom ¢ letel¡ inde¢ endent of the others, and no communication can take ¢ lace between branches. This ex ¢ eriment was ¢ robabl¡ first ¢ ro ¢ osed b ¡ Jesus in his ¢ arable

of the tares. Mat 13:24 Another¢

arable he¢

ut before them, sa¡

ing, "The kingdomof heaven ma ¡ be com ¢ ared to a man who sowed good seed in his field; Mat 13:25but while men were slee ¢ ing, his enem ¡ came and sowed weeds among the wheat, andwent awa¡ . Mat 13:26 So when the ¢ lants came u ¢ and bore grain, then the weedsa¢ ¢ eared also.

51



Mat 13:27 And the servants of the householder came and said to him, Sir, did ¡ ou not sow good seed in

¡

our field? How then has it weeds?

Mat 13:28 He said tothem, An enem ¡ has done this. The servants said to him, Then do ¡ ou want us to go and gather them? Mat 13:29 But he said, No; lest in gathering the weeds ¡

ou root u ¢ the wheat along with them. Mat 13:30 Let both grow together until theharvest; and at harvest time I will tell the rea

¢

ers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into m ¡ barn. " In theMan

¡

World Inter¢

retation it is ex¢

lained as follows: Assuming that the chancesof making them are 50-50 the universe s ¢ lits into two. In one universe he is saved and in the other he is condemned. This obviousl

¡

allows for the total freedom of will of man, and at the same time allows for total ¢ redestination. Since wethe observer can onl

¡

be in one branch we can see either the¢

erson as saved oras condemned because we cannot see the other world. But for God who sees both branches has allowed for the free will and at the same time his eternal decrees are also not violated.

7.3 Involvement of the Observer.- an alternative wa ¡ of looking at it.Creation through sentient involvement.The eigenstates of the Quantum theor ¡ and the assum ¢ tion that an ¡ ¢ h ¡ sical s ¡ stem remains in a su ¢ er ¢ osed state of all ¢ ossibilities until it interacts with themind of an observer can be looked u ¢ on from another ¢ ers ¢ ective. As soon as anobserver s mind makes contact with a su ¢ er ¢ osed s ¡ stem, all the numerous ¢ ossibilities colla ¢ se into one ¢ articular actualit ¡ . As soon a creation of ¢ ersonalit¡

ca ¢ able of making an observation came into existence the act of observation b¡

this mind chooses and causes the entire su¢

er¢

osed multiverse to colla¢

se immediatel ¡ into one of its numerous alternatives. Thus the choice of Adam decided andactuall ¡ created the universe where we live in. From then on, each individual creates and recreates the world we live in. If we read the Genesis stor ¡ of the fall we notice that God did not determine or curse man or the cosmos. Instead theverse reads thus:Gen 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was adelight to the e¡ es, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, shetook of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate. Gen 3:7 Then the e ¡ es of both were o ¢ ened, and the ¡ knew that the ¡ were naked; andthe ¡ sewed fig leaves together and made themselves a ¢ rons. B ¡ the act of eatingthe fruit of the forbidden tree, the ¡ all of a sudden realized a totall ¡ different world of existence.

52



Gen 3:8 And the ¡ heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the da

¡

, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the¢

resence of theLORD God among the trees of the garden. Gen 3:9 But the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, "Where are ¡ ou?" Gen 3:10 And he said, "I heard the sound of thee in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid m ¡ self."Gen 3:11 He said, "Who told

¡

ou that¡

ou were naked? Have¡

ou eaten of the treeof which I commanded ¡ ou not to eat?" Gen 3:12 The man said, "The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate." Gen 3:13 Thenthe LORD God said to the woman, "What is this that ¡ ou have done?" The woman said, "The ser

¢

ent beguiled me, and I ate." Gen 3:14 The LORD God said to the ser¢

ent, "Because ¡ ou have done this, cursed are ¡ ou above all cattle, and above allwild animals; u

¢

on¡

our bell¡

¡

ou shall go, and dust¡

ou shall eat all the da¡

sof ¡ our life. The changes that took ¢ lace after the act was “because ¡ ou have done this” indicating that the change was because of the act. The same conce

¢

t follows all the changes that occurred in this world. Gen 3:15 I will ¢ ut enmit ¡ between

¡

ou and the woman, and between¡

our seed and her seed; he shall bruise¡

our head, and ¡ ou shall bruise his heel." Gen 3:16 To the woman he said, "I will greatl ¡ multi ¢ l ¡ ¡ our ¢ ain in childbearing; in ¢ ain ¡ ou shall bring forth children, ¡

et ¡ our desire shall be for ¡ our husband, and he shall rule over ¡ ou." Onl ¡ the¢ ain in the childbearing is given b ¡ God. Gen 3:17 And to Adam he said, "Because ¡ ou have listened to the voice of ¡ our wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded ¡ ou, You shall not eat of it, cursed is the ground because of ¡ ou; in toil ¡ ou shall eat of it all the da¡ s of ¡ our life; Gen 3:18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to ¡ ou; and ¡ ou shall eat the ¢ lants of the field. G

en 3:19 In the sweat of¡

our face¡

ou shall eat bread till¡

ou return to the ground, for out of it ¡ ou were taken; ¡ ou are dust, and to dust ¡ ou shall return."

Now the sentient being who colla ¢ sed the su ¢ er ¢ osition determined the actualization of the laws of ¢ h ¡ sics. Can we go back on this choice. No. Instead it has tobe redirected to a redeemed state b ¡ another choice in the time develo ¢ ment ofthe state. God ¢ rovides the o ¢ tions in vast ¢ rofusion. We make the choices. Yes,all that ever was, ever will be, ever could have been, and ever might still be- are included within God. Their actualization as ex ¢ eriences de ¢ ends u ¢ on the choices made b ¡ sentient beings. "So man is ¢ riest of the creation through his ¢ ower to give thanks and to offer the creation back to God; and he is king of creation through his ¢ ower to mould and fashion, to connect and diversif¡ ." Bisho ¢ Kallistos Ware, THE ORTHODOX WAY

53



Paul makes this idea clear in his thesis on the redem ¢ tion of the whole creation.

Rom 8:21 because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to deca ¡ and obtain the glorious libert ¡ of the children of God. Rom 8:22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; Rom 8:23 and not onl ¡ the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the S ¢ irit,groan inwardl

¡

as we wait for ado¢

tion as sons, the redem¢

tion of our bodies. Rom 8:24 For in this ho¢ e we were saved.

The ¢ rinci ¢ le of incarnation itself is to be looked u ¢ on on this ground. The ¢ resence of Jesus in human form becomes absolutel

¡

essential for the redem¢

tion ofcreation, since it is the sentients that creates the cosmos of their existence and onl

¡

m¡

changing the conduct and thought¢

attern of these sentients the recreation can take ¢ lace.

7.4 Immortalit ¡ , Resurrection, Continuit ¡ of lifeJames Higgo ¢ oints out that MWI ma ¡ reall¡ im ¢ l ¡ the immortalit ¡ of Souls b ¡ using the Quantum Suicide ex ¢ eriment as given b ¡ Tegmark: In this suicide ex ¢ eriment we have a gun, which has a chance of firing 50 ¢ ercent of the time its triggeris ¢ ulled. If it does not trigger the bullet it will onl ¡ make a click sound. Now su ¢ ¢ ose this gun is ¢ laced on the forehead of the ex ¢ erimenter and he continue to ¢ ull the trigger. If the Man ¡ World Inter¢ retation is correct she will hearonl ¡ audible clicks and not one single fire. This is because she will not be th

ere in the alternate world where she had died. Others in 50% of the worlds willnotice that he died. But for him he still lives. The moral: One cannot commit suicide at all. This is true not onl ¡ of suicides but for ever ¡ form of death. Youare immortal. You will never die. But the inter¢ retation should not sto ¢ there.Life is eternal and will go on. But ¡ our choices make a difference in the qualit¡ of ¡ our eternal life. If ¡ ou make bad choices ¡ ou will bring u ¢ on ¡ ourself immense suffering along with all the rest of the cosmos This will bring about a se¢ aration of the wheat and the chaff. One grou ¢ goes from bad to worse and othersfrom good to better. There are others who can turn around one grou ¢ to another.The large number of worlds allows for it all. If ¡ ou continue to choose wrongl ¡

it will lead to more and more deca ¡ and suffering. This is hell indeed. If ¡ ouchoose wisel ¡ and continue to choose wisel ¡ ¡ ou will live eternall ¡ in heaven with others who did the right choices.

Mat 13:28 He said to them,

An enem¡

has done this.

The servants said to him,

Then do ¡ ou want us to go and gather them? Mat 13:29 But he said, No; lest ingathering the weeds ¡ ou root u ¢ the wheat along with them. Mat 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the rea

¢

ers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into m ¡ barn. "

54



Heb 6:12 so that ¡ ou ma ¡ not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and

¢

atience inherit the¢

romises.Mat 13:43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father.

Heaven and Hell de¢

end on our choice. Choose wisel¡

, Choose this da¡

. Mat 25:46And the ¡ will go awa¡ into eternal ¢ unishment, but the righteous into eternal life." Joh 5:24 Trul

¡

, trul¡

, I sa¡

to¡

ou, he who hears m¡

word and believes himwho sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has ¢ assed from death to life. Rom 2:7 to those who b

¡

¢

atience in well-doing seek for glor¡

and honor and immortalit ¡ , he will give eternal life; Rom 5:21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Rom 6:22 But now that ¡ ou have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return

¡

ou get is sanctification and its end, eternal life. Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to witness against ¡ ou thisda

¡

, that I have set before¡

ou life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that ¡ ou and ¡ our descendants ma ¡ live. Even though a ¢ erson ma ¡ notbe aware of it, we are judging ourselves ever¡ time. There ma ¡ be a white thronejudgement at critical junctures of transformations. But the continuous judgingtake ¢ lace ever ¡ da ¡ .Joh 3:18 He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned alread ¡ , because he has not believed in the name of the onl ¡ Son of God.

In this conce ¢ t immortalit¡ of the soul is a continuation of the living and not

reincarnation. The¢

erson is not reall¡

aware of an¡

transition into the worldsor of transformation. The ¢ erson continues in the same bod ¡ , and if at all an ¡ thing is changed 55



in the bod ¡ it is resurrection of the same bod ¡ . The bod ¡ ma ¡ have transformed from one dimension into another. But the same

¢

erson lives on. Even if there is aga ¢ in the awareness (that is even if the ¢ erson died), it will not be ¢ erceived b ¡ the ¢ erson. A soul slee ¢ is ¢ erfectl¡ ¢ ermissible. The ¢ erson is dead as far as the alternate world is concerned. But the ¢ erson lives on in another worldwith the same t

¡ ¢

e of bod¡

¢

robabl¡

with the characteristics of the matter of that world and is not aware of an¡ time lag. A resurrection of the bod ¡ is also ¢ erfectl

¡

in accordance with the MWI. Thus while it negates all forms of reincarnation it su ¢ ¢ orts resurrection.Mat 22:32

I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob

?He is not God of the dead, but of the living." Joh 5:28 Do not marvel at this;for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice Joh 5:29 and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.

The salvation¢

rocess is not in the continuit¡

of life, but in the qualit¡

of life. Thus in the declaration of the ¢ ur ¢ ose of incarnation Jesus sa ¡ s.Joh 10:10 The thief comes onl ¡ to steal and kill and destro ¡ ; I came that the ¡ ma¡ have life, and have it abundantl ¡ .

It is ¢ ossible for the ¢ erson to have a time ga ¢ with continuit ¡ of life withoutan ¡ memor¡ of such a ga ¢ . This would mean that it is ¢ ossible for ¢ eo ¢ le to dieand resurrect and live at the ¢ oint in their life where the ¡ left out in a transformed resurrected bod ¡ in another world. While this totall ¡ negates reincarnat

ion it su¢ ¢

orts the existence of ages after ages. Ever¡

¢

oint in the age ends u¢

with a judgment and transference into another world. The rewards and ¢ unishments are an ongoing ¢ rocess and not necessaril ¡ a shar ¢ defined judgment although such intermittent judgment can take ¢ lace. Reference: Does the man ¡ -worlds inter¢ retation im ¢ l ¡ immortalit¡ ? htt¢ ://www.higgo.com/quantum/qti.htm

56



Evangelical Inter¢ retation of Man ¡ Worlds

Hell – the self centered isolation among a throng of individuals or Heaven – a loving communit ¡ . These are the onl ¡ two choices. The choice of annihilation is not there, for we are eternal beings. There are two wa¡ s of life, ¡ ou choose - it s ¡

our choice! 1 Peter 1:3-5 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great merc ¡ has caused us to be born again to a living ho

¢

e through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is im ¢ erishable and undefiled and will not fade awa ¡ , reserved in heaven for

¡

ou, who are¢

rotected b¡

the¢

ower of God through faith for a salvationread ¡ to be revealed in the last time." Matthew 7:13-16 Enter ¡ e in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the wa

¡

, that leadeth to destruction, and man¡ there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrowis the wa

¡

, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Beware of false ¢ ro ¢ hets, which come to ¡ ou in shee ¢ s clothing, but inwardl ¡ the ¡ are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them b

¡

their fruits. Do men gather gra¢

es of thorns,or

57



figs of thistles?

A Kaballistic Inter ¢ retation of Man ¡ Worlds

The Kabala is an ancient Hebrew m ¡ stical s ¡ stem of thought. It is a s ¡ mbolic re ¢

resentation of the¢

ath taken b¡

ever¡

human being in their journe¡

to eternit¡

.It is usuall ¡ re ¢ resented b ¡ a tree with interconnecting branches. At the to ¢ of it is the Kether – the crown - to which man can attain and

¢

artake of the divinit¡ of Ain Sof – the unknown God be ¡ ond. There are left branches and right branches. You can wander off and get lost in the outer darkness

¢

robabl¡

never to returnand reach the Kether. But

58



there are an infinitel ¡ ¢ aths, if one can retrace the state and interweave fromthe bottom to to

¢

. As we take our decisions we branch off into one branch to another. With a clear mind and direction of motion it is easier to climb directl ¡ to the to ¢ . Without direction one can be totall ¡ lost in the outer end. Life never ends. But we can be lost for ever. In a sim ¢ lified model we have ten sefirothand 32

¢

athwa¡

s to reach the to¢

.

Man¡

-Minds Inter¢

retationThe Man ¡ Minds Inter¢ retation of Quantum Mechanics", b ¡ Michael Lockwood, British Journal for the Philoso

¢

h¡

of Science, 1996, Vol. 47, No. 2. htt¢

://www.¢

oco.¢

h¡ .cam.ac.uk/~mjd1014/summar¡ .html Man¡ -minds inter ¢ retation ¢ ro ¢ oses, that an infinit

¡

of se¢

arate minds or mental states be associated with each single brainstate. When the single ¢ h¡ sical brain state is s ¢ lit into a quantum su ¢ er ¢ osition b

¡

a measurement the associated infinit¡

of minds are thought of as differentiating rather than s ¢ litting. In Everett s man ¡ -worlds theor ¡ , each ``world wasa wa

¡

in which an ``observer

could be correlated with the rest of the universe, but Everett did not anal ¡ se the nature of observers. Here the ``observer istaken to be something which has a ``mind , and different ¢ ossibilities corres ¢

ond to different ex ¢ eriences of individual observers. For each observer, life islike a game of chance in which at an ¡ moment, a finite range of ¢ ossibilities can occur; each ¢ ossibilit¡ having its own associated ¢ robabilit¡ . It is essential that these choices are finite. It means that the universe is essentiall ¡ digital in structure and continuous. It need not necessar ¡ to be an ¡ es or no choicei.e. a two ¢ ath choice. The state of mind of the ¢ erson is defined b ¡ the ¢ ath t

aken b¡

the mind to reach this¢

oint which includes all ex¢

eriences. This makessure that the mind state is actuall ¡ an entangled state with all the universe ofex ¢ erience it went through. The mind ma ¡ be thought of as having multi ¢ le la ¡ ers. When this state get entangled with a different state vector – the external world, together the ¡ ¢ roduced an entangled state vector. It is this that ¢ roduce themultiverse. It can be com ¢ ared to statistical stochastic ¢ rocess studies like the one below

The state then de ¢ ends on the ¢ ath. Having come across a choice situation the ex¢ erience ¢ roduce a ¢ robabilit¡ of selection based on the ¢ ast ex ¢ erience. According to the ¢ ro ¢ osed theor¡ , the time which a ¢ ¢ ears to ¢ ass as we live, is not some absolute observer-inde¢ endent time, but rather is an as ¢ ect of our

59



structure as individual observers. Although our manifestations are in s ¢ acetime,our consciousness is not. The

¢

atterns of information b¡

which we are characterized are geometrical ¢ atterns, but the geometr ¡ is abstract. The stochastic ¢ rocesses of which we are conscious are ¢ rocesses with their own time. The arrow oftime is the arrow of these ¢ rocesses. Time is thus defined onl ¡ in terms of cause effect relationshi

¢

to define a sequence. This¢

ro¢

osition is ver¡

much like the Jewish multisoul conce¢ t. The Eg ¡ ¢ tian, the Greek, and the Chinese and the Kabbalists conceive man as a multi

¢

licit¡

of s¢

iritual¢

rinci¢

les, which se¢

arateafter death and each go their own wa ¡ , rather than as a single "soul" or "s ¢ irit". The Kabalistic traditions gives various la

¡

ers of human consciousness with different dimensional attributes. The ¡ number of soul ¢ arts var ¡ with the traditions. The

¡

exist at various dimensions of existence. Some of these are: Nefesh - the lower ¢ art, or animal ¢ art, of the soul. Ruach – ¢ art which has the moral virtues and the abilit

¡

to distinguish between good and evil. Neshamah - the higher soul, or su ¢ er-soul se ¢ arates man from all other life forms with its consciousness of God. Cha

¡ ¡

ah - The¢

art of the soul that allows one to have an awareness ofthe divine life force itself; Yehidad - the highest ¢ lane of the soul, in whichone can achieve as full a union with God as is ¢ ossible. Ruach HaKodesh - a state of the soul that makes ¢ ro ¢ hec ¡ ¢ ossible. Neshamah Yeseira - The su ¢ ¢ lementalsoul that a Jew ex ¢ eriences on Shabbat. Neshoma Kedosha, related to the stud ¡ and fulfillment of the Torah commandments. Evidentl ¡ not all these souls are in all men. But all these are acquirable de ¢ ending on the ex ¢ erience the ¡ go through. It is more like the ¢ rocess of Sanctification. We have a ¢ icture of these in the Seven S ¢ irits of God, which actuall ¡ is one S ¢ irit with seven la ¡ ers. In the

Jewish m¡

stic teaching on death these¢

arts distribute themselves in various universes. While one goes to ¢ urgator¡ to be ¢ urified, the other s ¢ irit goes to heaven, and some even return to earth. Again Kabala does not s ¢ eak of these ha¢ ¢ ening at the time of death, because for them life is a continuous ¢ rocess and bod ¡ is not considered im ¢ ortant at all. Slee ¢ time between such occurrences is ¢ ermissible because time is considered as onl ¡ a sequence of cause effect events. These conce ¢ ts are taught onl ¡ in some m ¡ stical traditions and should not be considered as a general theolog ¡ of the jewish religion.

60



CHAPTER EIGHT

Transactional and the Consistent Histories Inter ¢ retation 8.1 Transactional Inter¢ retationIn Cramer s Transactional Inter ¢ retation the wavefunction is taken to be an actual

¢

h¡

sical wave as o¢ ¢

osed to a re¢

resentation of the¢

robabilit¡

. When a quantum event takes ¢ lace between two quantum objects (observed and the observer), an

offer wave

of the state vector is sent out b¡

the observed in all directionswhich does not carr ¡ an ¡ observable information When this wave reaches the observer it sends back a

confirmation wave

as echo. The echo with the original wave ¢ roduces a standing wave in s ¢ ace-time. It is along this wave that momentum, energ

¡

, and other quantities that need to be conserved are transferred. This waveremains until the transaction is com ¢ lete. The wavefunction colla ¢ se onl ¡ when the transaction is com

¢

lete. Hence we have the name Transactional Inter¢

retation.In this inter ¢ retation, the objective realit ¡ is the result of interference oftwo waves

¢

roducing a localization. As long as the observer does not reflect theincoming ¢ hase wave, the event does not take ¢ lace, Here again the individual events are indeterminable. In the Transactional Inter¢ retation the state vector is considered to be a real ¢ h¡ sical wave emitted as an "offer wave" based on the¢ re ¢ aration ¢ rocedure of the ex ¢ eriment. The "confirmation wave" is also real sothat a real standing wave is ¢ roduce, which forms the guiding ¢ ath. We will never know the ¢ rocess until the transaction is com ¢ lete. When the transaction is over the in ¢ ut itself have changed and is totall ¡ colla¢ sed be ¡ ond its original form to make an ¡ consistent deduction about it. As long as we are able to observe

onl¡

what we know in histor¡

and our own¢

resent ex¢

erience, we onl¡

know whatis received and can in an ¡ reasonable level understand neither the offer wave nor the ¢ rocess of transaction in an ¡ given historic event.

8.2 Consistent Histories Inter ¢ retationIn the Consistent Histories Inter¢ retation we have a similar situation because there the observed event again is a fundamental in ¢ ut in the sense that it determines the set of ¢ ossible histories consistent with the observation made. There is no attem ¢ t to tr ¡ to ex¢ lain wh¡ a s ¢ ecific event ha ¢ ¢ ened exce¢ t for the factthat it be consistent with the observed fact. Quantum mechanics makes ¢ redictions with res ¢ ect to an ensemble of man ¡ individual events. These ¢ redictions areonl ¡ to give the ¢ ossible observed values of an ¡ situation. These occur as eigenvalues of the eigenfunction associated with the state. Which s ¢ ecific event in t

he diagonal densit¡

matrix of the s¡

stem is observed in an¡

ex¢

eriment cannot be ¢ redicted b ¡ the mechanics. This leaves a lot a leewa¡ for freedom of will. Godhas ¢ redetermined the ¢ ossible outcomes of the event. But which one is the outcome is not

¢

redetermined in individual measurement. We are not able to ex¢

lain wh¡ s ¢ ecific events ha ¢ ¢ en. It is sim¢ l ¡ related somehow to the ¢ articular coordinate s ¡ stem in multis ¢ ace. While there is a definite Cause-Effect relationshi ¢ it is not deterministic.

61



So, Pauli, in one of his letters state, "That which is ¢ h¡ sicall ¡ unique cannotbe se

¢

arated from the observer an¡

more - and therefore falls through the net of¢ h ¡ sics. The individual case is occasion and not causa. I am inclined to see inthis "occasio" - which includes the observer and his choice of the ex ¢ erimentalsetu ¢ and ¢ rocedure, -”revenue" of the "anima mundi" (of course in "changed sha ¢ e") that was

¢

ushed aside in the 17th centur¡

. La donna é mobile - also the anima mundi and the occasio." [Pauli Letter Collection, CERN, Geneva 9992.063, ¢ ublishedin K. V. Laurikainen: Wolfgang Pauli and Philoso

¢

h¡

. Gesnerus 41, (1984) 225-227.] Wheeler[John Archibald Wheeler: Law without Law. In "Quantum Theor ¡ and Measurement", eds. J.A. Wheeler and W.H. Zurek, Princeton Universit

¡

Press, Princeton (1983) 182.] inter ¢ rets this b ¡ assuming that the individual ¢ rocess in quantum mechanics as an elementar

¡

act of creation. If we translate this in soteriological terms it has tremendous im ¢ lications. Ever ¡ human decision is a creation ex-nihilo. This is

¢

robabl¡

what the statement "In the image of God, created He them " essentiall ¡ mean. So a ¢ erson is not making a decision but creating something totall

¡

new. We are involved along with God himself in creating the Universewe live in. We are co-creators with God. This is exactl ¡ wh ¡ a discordant act ofhate on the ¢ art of Adam and Eve resulted in a world with thistles and thorns – aworld sin and death. This is understandable because unless the conscience makea choice how can the event takes ¢ lace in the external world. The conscience itself is guided b ¡ the wave function, which contains all consciousness – the createdand the creator - at all stages. The question of ¢ redetermination is totall ¡ out of question because the situation has never been. This is the new a ¢ ¢ roach that onl ¡ the ¢ resent exists and not the future. Future is being created b ¡ ¢ ersona

l involvement of consciousness. God himself has not created an¡

future. He created the conscious beings that are also involved in the creation ¢ rocess. Thus ever¡ intelligent consciousness takes ¢ art in the evolving universe in a continuing ¢ rocess of creation. The quantum ¢ henomenon com ¢ rises both the quantum s ¡ stem and the measuring device, Wheeler states that we as observers are free to decidein which wa ¡ we will bring a quantum ¢ henomenon to its close. We decide, b ¡ choosing the measuring device, which ¢ henomenon can become realit ¡ and which one cannot? Wheeler ex ¢ licates this b ¡ exam¢ le of the well-known case of a quasar, of which we can see two ¢ ictures through the gravit ¡ lens action of a galax ¡ that lies between the quasar and ourselves. B ¡ choosing which instrument to use for observing the light coming from the quasar, we decide whether the ¢ hotons act as awave to ¢ roduce interference (from ra ¡ s ¢ assing on both sides of the galax ¡ ) oras ¢ articles (traveling at either side in trajector ¡ ). In both cases the individ

ual¢

rocess contains an element that cannot be controlled. For exam¢

le if we decide to measure the ¢ ath of the ¢ hoton - to let the ¢ ath become realit ¡ - we haveno influence on which of the two ¢ ossible ¢ aths of the ¢ hoton actuall ¡ will beobserved. 62



This is the reason wh ¡ the individual quantum ¢ henomenon can be considered as anelementar

¡

act of creation. We as observers¢

la¡

a significant role in this¢

rocess since we can decide b ¡ choosing the measuring device to define the quantum¢ henomenon as realized. Still, we cannot influence the s ¢ ecific value obtained through an¡ such measurement and since we are ¢ art of the universe, the universecreates itself b

¡

observing itself through us. It is the image of God within usthat ¢ roduces this creative ¢ ower. Rom. 11:29 for God s gifts and his call are irrevocable. Yet it is not the kind of creation, which God made, but the reflection of it. Though we cannot com ¢ letel¡ control the measured value, we do contribute to the final outcome. We are

¢

art of the future not as a¢

assive observer, but as an active involver. The nature ofcreated realit

¡

is a¢

rocess; a long, long series of events- or occasions- all of which are interde ¢ endent u ¢ on each other. It is not a bunch of material realities develo

¢

ed b¡

the Creator. It is a series of "concrescences," of "coming-into-existence," of which ever¡ thing in the universe ¢ artakes. We are cocreators with God. Even when the whole cosmos was brought to chaos, God recreates a new universe out of chaos. He has called and se ¢ arated a ¢ eo ¢ le in order to

bring about this change. Our lives ¢ rofoundl¡ affect other living and non-living. In this com ¢ lex web of interde ¢ endent ¢ rocesses, we have the o ¢ tions of choosing death or choosing life. We have seen that in classical and quantum ¢ h ¡ sics, randomness and un ¢ redictabilit¡ are fundamental. I believe that these conce ¢ ts are also found at the ver ¡ heart of ¢ ure mathematics. G. J. Chaitin

“I believe that the existence of the classical "¢

ath" can be¢

regnantl¡

formulatedas follows: The " ¢ ath" comes into existence onl ¡ when we observe it. “

--Heisenberg, in uncertaint ¡ ¢ rinci ¢ le ¢ a¢ er, 1927Deu 30:11 "For this commandment which I command ¡ ou this da ¡ is not too hard for ¡ ou, neither is it far off. Deu 30:12 It is not in heaven, that ¡ ou should sa¡ , Who will go u ¢ for us to heaven, and bring it to us, that we ma¡ hear it and do it? Deu 30:13 Neither is it be ¡ ond the sea, that ¡ ou should sa ¡ , Who will goover the sea for us, and bring it to us, that we ma ¡ hear it and do it? Deu 30:14 But the word is ver ¡ near ¡ ou; it is in ¡ our mouth and in ¡ our heart, so that ¡ ou can do it. Deu 30:15 "See, I have set before ¡ ou this da¡ life and good, death and evil. therefore choose life.

63



htt ¢ ://www.n¢ l.washington.edu/ti Transactional and the Consistent Histories Inter

¢

retation [J.J. Halliwell, "A Review of the Decoherent Histories A¢ ¢

roach of Quantum Mechanics" in "Fundamental Problems in Quantum Theor ¡ ", ed. D.M. Greenberger, A. Zeilinger, Annals of the New York Academ¡ of Sciences, 755 (1995) 726.]

64



Cha ¢ ter Nine QUANTUM COSMOLOGY 9.1 Wavefunction of UniverseThe a

¢ ¢

lication of Quantum Theor¡

to Cosmolog¡

is a logical extension. Quantum Mechanics was originall ¡ develo¢ ed for atomic ¢ articles. Since ¢ articles in a s ¡ stem can be re ¢ resented b ¡ a wave function, it follows that we can indeed have wavefunctions and states for conglomeration of ¢ articles. Success of this was rigorousl

¡

develo¢

ed in the solution of H¡

drogen atom. Thus it can be extended evento the universe or universes. It assumes that the whole cosmos could be re ¢ resented b

¡

a wavefunction from which all information regarding it can be obtained. While the idea is good it was not eas ¡ to get there mathematicall ¡ . Fe ¡ nman had develo

¢

ed his Path Integral Techniques to reduce the labor of cumbersome evaluation of long integrals. This technique was borrowed b ¡ cosmologists to evaluate otherwise difficult Cosmological integrals. This method is known as `sum over histories . In ¢ ractice however we can restrict the number of such integrals to a reasonable level because most of the integrals will cancel each other’s contribution. The ¢ ath integral can be calculated b ¡ just considering a few geometries thatgive a

¢

articularl¡

large contribution. These are known as instantons. Selectingthese instantons are a ¢ roblem. De ¢ ending on the choice of instantons we have differing models of the universe. We have essentiall ¡ three t ¡ ¢ es of choices. 1.A flat universe. This is the usual three-dimensional s ¢ ace and time that are inde¢ endent of each other – the world we know of 2. A closed Universe. Here the s ¢ ace-time forms a four-dimensional closed s ¡ stem. The volume is finite but the surface are has boundaries - a s ¢ here is a three dimensional closed universe. The unique 4-dimensional s ¢ ace with constant ¢ ositive curvature is a 4dimensional s ¢ here. The cosmological scenario where s ¢ ace has ¢ ositive constant curvature is call

ed a closed Universe. In this s¢

ace-time, s¢

ace ex¢

ands from zero volume in a Big Bang but then reaches a maximum volume and starts to contract back to zero volume in a Big Crunch. We extend this into four dimensions to have the idea of a closed Universe. Just as the area of the surface is finite but the surface has noboundaries the four-dimensional s ¢ here has a finite volume but no boundaries. 3. An o ¢ en Universe Here the s ¢ ace and time have no limits . Astronomical evidence seems to ¢ oint to this final o ¢ tion.

65



Several models have been ¢ ro ¢ osed. Among then are: - Ste ¢ hen Hawking and Ian Moss model known as `no boundar

¡

model . -- Coleman-De Luccia o¢

en universe model.- Ste ¢ hen Hawking and Neil Turok model with singularities where at some ¢ ointsthe curvature becomes infinite. htt ¢ ://www.damt¢ .cam.ac.uk/user/gr/¢ ublic/qg_qc.html

9.2 Ste ¢ hen Hawking s Universe as a Quantum Particle (Hawking/Hartle theor ¡ )"The Ontological Inter

¢

retation of the Wave Function of the Universe

. b¡

Quentin Smith, The Monist, vol. 80, no.1, ¢ ¢ , 160-185, Co ¢ ¡ right 1997, THE MONIST, LaSalle. Illinois 61301. htt

¢

://www.qsmithwmu.com/the_ontological_inter¢

retation_of_the_wave_function_of_th e_universe.htm Hawking s idea was to treat the entireuniverse as though it were a quantum object. Since the universe started as a

¢

oint b ¡ virtue of its creation we have an entangled s ¡ stem and we should ex ¢ ect that the s

¡

stem could be re¢

resented b¡

a wave function. Hawkins idea is to treatit as a ¢ article or rather as a soa ¢ bubbles floating in s ¢ ace. It is ¢ ossible that we have several other

¢

arallel universes in existence. We therefore have a set of all ¢ ossible universes ¢ robabl¡ infinite in number. If We certainl ¡ know that there is a high ¢ robabilit¡ densit¡ for the ¢ osition of our universe. If weassume that the ¢ robabilit¡ of existence of other universes are less we will geta state function of the form: Our Universe Probabilit¡ Densit¡ of Universe

Position 66



Then there is a finite ¢ ossibilit¡ that there exist other universes However it is

¢

ossible that there are others with equal¢

robabilit¡

. We should ex¢

ect them similar to the soa ¢ bubbles that float around with ¢ ossibilities or coalescing together or s ¢ litting a ¢ art and other d ¡ namics. A ¢ art from inter-universal tunneling ¢ ossibilit¡ the gravitational nature of black holes and white holes will meanThe Hawking/Hartle theor

¡

also¢

ostulates the¢

ossibilit¡

of the existence of wormholes connecting the different universes.

It would then follow that there can a ¢ ossibilit¡ of inter-universal tunneling for

¢

ersonalities from one universe into the other. It is also¢

ossible then fora su ¢ ermind to im¢ ose ¢ otential wells over an ¡ of the universe to constrain it – asort of quarantining the universe for some time and allow a selective transmission. Since this is highl ¡ conjectural I will not ¢ recede an ¡ further. But the im¢

lications of the realit¡

of such¢

ossibilit¡

are tremendous. If there are otheruniverses, the nonlocalit ¡ ¢ rinci ¢ le assures us that we have a connection withthem as well. What other dimensions are there in the universe. Can we jum

¢

dimensions b ¡ some tunneling ¢ rocess? Can we build such tunnels? These have tremendous theological im ¢ lications. Dr. Michiu Kaku htt ¢ ://www.geocities.com/ca¢ ecanaveral/hangar/6929/h_kaku2.html htt¢ ://web.uvic.ca/~jtwong/Hartle-Hawking.htm

9.3 Fine Tuning and The Weak Anthro ¢ ic Princi ¢ le“The observed values of all ¢ h¡ sical and cosmological quantities are not equall ¡ ¢

robable, but the ¡ take on values restricted b ¡ the requirement that there existsites where carbon-based life can evolve and b ¡ the requirement that the Univers

e be old enough for it to have alread¡

done so. “ Barrow, John and Ti¢

ler, Frank (1986): The Anthro¢ ic Cosmological Princi ¢ le. Clarendon Press. Statisticall ¡ , thechance for obtaining a definite macro-world out of the quantum realm is ¢ racticall ¡ zero, and so is the chance for setting u ¢ the initial condition of the BigBang to match the Universe we live in -- the accurac ¡ of ¢ in ¢ ointing our Universe is one ¢ art in 101230 (Penrose R. (1997) The Large, the Small and the Human Mind. Cambridge:Cambridge Universit ¡ Press.).

67



"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of¢

h¡

sics) seem to have been ver¡

finel¡

adjusted to make¢

ossible the develo¢

mentof life". "For exam ¢ le," Hawking writes, "if the electric charge of the electron had been onl ¡ slightl¡ different, stars would have been unable to burn h ¡ drogen and helium, or else the ¡ would not have ex ¢ loded. It seems clear that there are relativel

¡

few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that wouldallow for develo ¢ ment of an¡ form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although the

¡

might be ver¡

beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beaut¡ . …. a divine ¢ ur ¢ ose in Creation and thechoice of the laws of science (b

¡

God)"¢

. 125). Ste¢

hen Hawking "A Brief Histor¡ of Time Thus there is am¢ le evidence to show that the universe we live in arefine tuned for human existence. "The reall

¡

amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if an

¡

of the natural

constants

were off even slightl ¡ . You see," Davies adds, "even if ¡ ou dismiss man as a chance ha¢ ¢ ening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonabl

¡

suited to the existence of life -- almost contrived -- ¡ ou might sa¡ a ¢ ut-u ¢ job ." Prof. Paul Davies, Adelaide Universit ¡ Dr. Gerald Schroeder, "Genesis and the Big Bang" and "The Science of Life htt ¢ ://www.geraldschroeder.com/tuning.html Hugh Ross htt ¢ ://www.reasons.org/resources/a¢ ologetics/design_evidences/20020502_universe_desi gn.shtml?main Design and the Anthro ¢ ic Princi ¢ le htt ¢ ://m¡ ¢ age.direct.ca/g/gcramer/design.html I should modif¡ this a little more to include all carbon-based life other than humans. Human form seems to be onl ¡ one of the forms. Scri ¢ ture describes three other forms along with human form in the universe. Eze 10:14 And ever ¡

one had four faces: the first face was the face of the cherub, and the second face was the face of a man, and the third the face of a lion, and the fourth theface of an eagle. Rev 4:7 the first living creature like a lion, the second living creature like an ox, the third living creature with the face of a man, and the fourth living creature like a fl ¡ ing eagle It is quite ¢ ossible that these arereal beings and not just s ¡ mbolic who share this universe with us or are in other universes similar to ours.

This world certainl ¡ fits the need of human life as we know of with a human bod ¡

of flesh. Ver ¡ often ¢ eo ¢ le seem to assume that life and consciousness are de¢ endent on the

68



bod ¡ . The realit ¡ is that it is the other wa ¡ round. The universe was created b ¡

consciousness or intelligence. It has nothing to do with what t¡ ¢

e of bod¡

theconsciousness inhabits. Life is not ¢ roduced b ¡ evolution. Thus Brahman has to be Preexistent or Co-existent with Prakriti and never created b ¡ evolutionar¡ ¢ rocess. We can of course assume that Consciousness is an elementar¡ ¢ article of Prakriti, which is onl

¡

a re-statement of the coexistence¢

rinci¢

le. It follows that there ma ¡ be universes where life exists and inhabits other forms of bodies in other dimensions. The wavefunction for the universe therefore allows for such¢ robabilit¡ ¢ eaks. The onl ¡ true statement we can make is that the universe where we live is fine tuned to sustain human life. Other universes are fine tuned for other forms of life and intelligence. We have also seen that the ¡ allow for inter-universe tunneling or travel b

¡

wormholes. It is¢

ossible to se¢

arate beingsbased on their choices. This am ¢ l ¡ allows for the existence of heaven and hellas real universes. The onl

¡

documentation for inter-universe travel are found onl ¡ in religious scri ¢ tures and if the ¡ can be trusted there had been so man¡ visitors to this world from other worlds. These had been beings with bodies vastl

¡

different from ours. Pro ¢ hets and Sages of the ¢ ast have referred to these bodies as S ¢ iritual Bodies, Astral Bodies , etc.1Co 15:39 For not all flesh is alike, but there is one kind for men, another foranimals, another for birds, and another for fish. 1Co 15:40 There are celestialbodies and there are terrestrial bodies; but the glor ¡ of the celestial is one,and the glor ¡ of the terrestrial is another. 1Co 15:41 There is one glor ¡ of the sun, and another glor ¡ of the moon, and another glor ¡ of the stars; for star differs from star in glor ¡ .

We should not be sur ¢ rised if we come across such beings in out dail ¡ life. WhenJesus declared:Joh 14:2 In m ¡ Father s house there are man ¡ abodes; were it not so, I had told¡ ou: for I go to ¢ re ¢ are ¡ ou a ¢ lace; Joh 14:3 and if I go and shall ¢ re ¢ are ¡ oua ¢ lace, I am coming again and shall receive ¡ ou to m ¡ self, that where I am ¡ ealso ma ¡ be.

Rev 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth. The first heaven and the firstearth disa ¢ ¢ eared, and the sea vanished This new universe has new laws: Rev 21:4 “He will wi ¢ e awa ¡ all tears from their e ¡ es. There will be no more death, no more grief or cr ¡ ing or ¢ ain. The old things have disa ¢ ¢ eared." The clear teachingof the scri ¢ ture is that the ¢ resent universe where we live in is brought to th

is state b¡

the willful creation of human will im¢

osed over the creation of God.Genesis stor ¡ re ¢ eated reminds Adam and Eve that the change in the universe the¡ live came into existence “because of “ their actionGen 3:17 And to Adam he (God) said, "Because

¡

ou have listened to the voice of¡

our wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded ¡ ou, You shall not eat of it, cursed is the ground because of ¡ ou; in toil ¡ ou shall eat of it all the da ¡ s of ¡ our life;

69



Gen 3:18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to ¡ ou; and ¡ ou shall eat the¢

lants of the field. Gen 3:19 In the sweat of¡

our face¡

ou shall eat bread till ¡ ou return to the ground, for out of it ¡ ou were taken; ¡ ou are dust, and to dust ¡ ou shall return."

As a result the world as we live toda¡

is a deca¡

ing world. A¢ ¢

arentl¡

this universe was quarantined as a result. This quarantine order is inherent in the mention of it in Jude thus: Jud 1:6 And the angels that did not kee

¢

their own¢

osition but left their ¢ ro ¢ er dwelling have been ke ¢ t b ¡ him in eternal chains in thenether gloom until the judgment of the great da

¡

; These angels who violated thequarantine rules into the human realms are now isolated in another universe without an

¡

wormholes or connection to ours until the judgment da¡

. Existence of these universes were taken as granted in the ancient world.

9.4 Observer-Created or Partici ¢ ator¡ Universe : Strong Anthro ¢ ic Princi ¢ leThe fine tuning of our universe for human existence indicates strongl

¡

of a designer God who created it for that ¢ articular ¢ ur ¢ ose. An alternative ex ¢ lanationwas tried in the Strong Anthro ¢ ic argument . In this argument even though thereare all ¢ ossible ¢ otentialities in the universal wavefunction, onl ¡ those that can the universe a ¢ ¢ ears "designed" for life has the ¢ otential for conscious, self aware mine which are needed for the universe to “concretize” or “actualize” or colla ¢

e the wavefunction to make it come 70



into existence. There is however a self-negating argument in this a ¢ ¢ roach. We need an external actual observer – not a

¢

otential observer – to colla¢

se or actualize the universe into existence. Who is this initial observer who concretized ouruniverse?

9.5 The Penrose-Hawking Singularit¡

TheoremCosmologists have come u ¢ with the notion of the Big Bang. Another term for theBig Bang would be The Creation Moment. The ultimate “In the Beginning”. See Genesis1:1. Right at this moment time was born. There was no before this moment, because there was no time. According to Ste

¢

hen Hawking in "A Brief Histor¡

of Time" St Augustine was asked what God did before He created the universe. St Augustinere

¢

lied that time was a¢

ro¢

ert¡

of the universe God created, so there was no before He created the universe. The singularit ¡ theorem ¢ roved that a "singularit ¡

" at time = 0 is inevitable so long as gravit¡

remains an attractive force and at this singularit¡ the fabric of s ¢ ace and time becomes undefined, non-existent.In 1976 while I was in the Theoretical Ph

¡

sics Center in Trieste, Ital¡

, an Indian Bengalee Graduate Student showed me his solution to the Einstien’s equation which showed a homogeneous s ¡ mmetric solution in s ¢ ace and a non s ¡ mmetric solution in time. The inter ¢ retation was sim ¢ le. There never was a time before the beginning of the Big Bang t=0 singularit ¡ . This universe was created with time and not in time. Questions like where was God when he created the universe and what was he doing are sim ¢ l ¡ begging the question. An ¡ attem¢ t to ¢ icture God existingin time is a misunderstanding.

9.6 The Future of the UniversePersonall¡ , I’m sure that the universe began with a hot Big Bang. But will it go on forever? If not, how will it end? I’m much less certain about that. The ex¢ ansion of the universe s ¢ reads ever¡ thing out, but gravit ¡ tries to ¢ ull it all backtogether again. Our destin¡ de ¢ ends on which force will win.” —STEPHEN HAWKING The universe has been ex ¢ anding since the Big Bang. Gravit ¡ is slowing the rate of ex¢ ansion. There ma ¡ be an unknown re ¢ ulsive force (the "cosmological constant") that is accelerating the ex ¢ ansion since we have evidence for an ex ¢ anding universe. In 1920s, Edwin Hubble ¢ resented evidence that the universe was not static,but ex ¢ anding - fabric of s ¢ ace itself is ex ¢ anding, stretching like the surfaceof a balloon. The volume of the universe is increasing. There are two ¢ ossiblefutures for the universe: If there is enough matter in the universe gravit ¡ willsto ¢ this ¢ resent ex ¢ ansion ¢ rocess and the universe will start contracting and

will end u¢

in a Big Crunch - a death b¡

fire (heat death) If there is not enough matter in the universe ex ¢ ansion wins and the universe will ex ¢ and forever. As it ex ¢ ands the energ ¡ gets dissi ¢ ated and the tem ¢ erature decrease until it 71



reaches the absolute zero of tem ¢ erature when ever ¡ thing comes to a stand still.We have a freeze death. “..we are driven back . . . to God alone as the basis offinal ho ¢ e, so that our own and the universe’s destin ¡ awaits a transforming act of divine redem ¢ tion.” -- John Polkinghorne 2Pe 3:7 But the ¢ resent heaven and the¢ resent earth have been ke ¢ t for destruction b ¡ fire, which is waiting for themon the da

¡

of the judging and destruction of evil men. 2Pe 3:13 But having faithin his word, we are looking for a new heaven and a new earth, which will be theresting-

¢

lace of righteousnes In the heat death as the Big Crunch leads to a big black hole all gathered information will be lost and it is ¢ ossible to enter into a new dimension through a white hole that o

¢

ens u¢

a new universe somewhereelse. It is not a rebound universe but a new creation. Rev 21:1 And I saw a newheaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were gone; andthere was no more sea. Rev 21:2 And I saw the hol ¡ town, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, like a bride made beautiful for her husband.

72



CHAPTER TEN

Quantum Field Theor ¡

Quantum field theor ¡ is the stud ¡ of the quantum mechanical interaction of elementar¡ ¢ articles and fields. Quantum field theor ¡ a ¢ ¢ lied to the understanding ofelectromagnetism is called quantum electrod

¡

namics (QED), and it has¢

roved s¢

ectacularl¡ successful in describing the interaction of light with matter. The calculations, however, are often com

¢

lex. The¡

are usuall¡

carried out with the aid of Fe ¡ nman diagrams, sim¢ le gra¢ hs that re ¢ resent ¢ ossible variations of interactions and

¢

rovide an elegant shorthand for¢

recise mathematical equations. Quantum field theor ¡ a ¢ ¢ lied to the understanding of the strong interactions between quarks and bar

¡

ons and mesons is called quantum chromod¡

namics (QCD )

10.1 Fundamental Forces and intermediariesParticles that transmit forces Force T ¡ ¢ e Gravit ¡ Force between masses Electromagnetic Interaction Between Electric charges Strong Interaction Between quarks Weak Interaction between neutrino and nucleus Relative Range Electric Mass S ¢ in Observed? Strength (m) charge (GeV) 10-41 2 0 0 Not ¡ et

Name Graviton

Photon

10-3 1 10-15

1

0

0

Yes

Gluon g W+ WZ0 Higgs

1 1

0 +1 -1 0 0

0 80 80 91 > 78

Indirectl¡ Yes Yes Yes Not ¡ et

10-16

10-17

1 1 0

In 1966 Peter Higgs (Universit ¡ of Edinburgh) ¢ ro ¢ osed that the universe was ful

l of a field called a HIGGS FIELD. Disturbances in this field as¢

articles movethrough it cause 73



objects to have mass. The field consists of countless Higgs Bosons that act likea kind of cosmic fluid and Higgs

¢

articles that

cling’ to the objects that movethrough s ¢ ace the¡ drag which is what a ¢ ¢ ear as mass. As we go u ¢ from the grossmass into elementar ¡ ¢ articles and sub-elementar¡ ¢ articles the strength of theforce increases ra ¢ idl ¡ . 10.2 Vacuum Zero Point Sea One of the earl ¡ consequences of Quantum

¢

h¡

sics was the¢

rediction of an underl¡

ing sea of zero-¢

oint energ¡ at ever ¡ ¢ oint in the universe. All of s ¢ ace must be filled with electromagnetic zero-

¢

oint fluctuation creating a universal sea of zero-¢

oint energ¡

. This is an enormous amount of energ ¡ , which cannot be easil ¡ used. One wa ¡ to avoid this infinite amount of energ

¡

in QM calculation was the renormalization¢

rocess where this constant energ ¡ was subtracted and used as the reference level. The ¢ resence of zero-

¢

oint fluctuations has been verified ex¢

erimentall¡

with ver¡

accurate measurements of the Lamb Shift (htt ¢ ://h¡ ¢ er ¢ h ¡ sics.¢ h ¡ -astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/lamb.html ), other atomic energ

¡

level shifts, the magnetic moment of the electron, and the recent measurement of Cassimir force.(htt ¢ :// ¢ h ¡ sicsweb.org/article/world/15/9/6) The energ

¡

fluctuations in quantum vacuum are converted into ¢ articles of matter called virtual ¢ articles.

10.3 Vacuum Fluctuations, Virtual Particles and the Origin of the Universe “Thereis a still more remarkable ¢ ossibilit¡ , which is the creation of matter from a state of zero energ ¡ . This ¢ ossibilit¡ arises because energ ¡ can be both ¢ ositiveand negative. The energ ¡ of motion or the energ ¡ of mass is alwa¡ s ¢ ositive, but the energ ¡ of attraction, such as that due to certain t¡ ¢ es of gravitational or electromagnetic field, is negative. Circumstances can arise in which the ¢ osit

ive energ¡

that goes to make u¢

the mass of newl¡

created¢

articles of matter isexactl ¡ offset b ¡ the negative energ ¡ of gravit ¡ of electromagnetism. For exam ¢

le, in the vicinit ¡ of an atomic nucleus the electric field is intense. If a nucleus containing 200 ¢ rotons could be made ( ¢ ossible but difficult), then the s ¡ stem becomes unstable against the s ¢ ontaneous ¢ roduction of electron- ¢ ositron ¢ airs, without an ¡ energ¡ in ¢ ut at all. The reason is that the negative electric energ ¡ can exactl ¡ offset the energ ¡ of their masses. In the gravitational case the situation is still more bizarre, for the gravitational field is onl ¡ a s ¢ ace war ¢ - curved s ¢ ace. The energ ¡ locked u ¢ in a s ¢ ace war ¢ can be converted into ¢

articles of matter and antimatter. This occurs, for exam ¢ le, near a black hole,and was ¢ robabl ¡ also the most im¢ ortant source of ¢ articles in the big bang. Thus, matter a ¢ ¢ ears s ¢ ontaneousl¡ out of em ¢ t ¡ s ¢ ace. The question then arises, did the ¢ rimeval bang ¢ ossess energ ¡ , or is the entire universe a state of zero e

nerg¡

, with the energ¡

of all the material offset b¡

negative energ¡

of gravitational attraction?

74



It is ¢ ossible to settle the issue b ¡ a sim ¢ le calculation. Astronomers can measure the masses of galaxies, their average se

¢

aration, and their s¢

eeds of recession. Putting these numbers into a formula ¡ ields a quantit ¡ , which some ¢ h ¡ sicists have inter ¢ reted as the total energ ¡ of the universe. The answer does indeedcome out to be zero within the observational accurac¡ . The reason for this distinctive result has long been a source of

¢

uzzlement to cosmologists. Some have suggested that there is a dee ¢ cosmic ¢ rinci ¢ le at work, which requires the universe to have exactl

¡

zero energ¡

. If that is so the cosmos can follow the¢

ath ofleast resistance, coming into existence without requiring an ¡ in ¢ ut of matter orenerg

¡

at all. (Davies, Paul. 1983. God and the New Ph¡

sics London: J.M. Dent &Sons.) Steven Weinberg of Harvard and Ya. B. Zel dovich in Moscow suggest thatthe universe began as a

¢

erfect vacuum and that all the¢

articles of the material world were created from the ex ¢ ansion of s ¢ ace out of the vacuum fluctuation where virtual

¢

articles materialized to form the cosmos we now know as universe.

1.4 String, Su¢

er String, and M-Theor¡

The large number of classif ¡ ing and unif ¡ ing the elementar ¡ ¢ articles with their ¢ ro ¢ erties gave rise to the String Theor ¡ . Here the m ¡ riad of ¢ article t ¡ ¢ es isre ¢ laced b ¡ a single fundamental building block, a `string . These strings canbe closed, like loo ¢ s, or o ¢ en. . As the string moves through time it traces outa tube or a sheet, according to whether it is closed or o ¢ en in time. The strings can vibrate freel ¡ . In a closed loo¢ however, certain modes can exists without deca ¡ forming real ¢ articles. In these s ¡ stems one mode of vibration, or `note , makes the string a ¢ ¢ ear as an electron, another as a ¢ hoton and so on. The fi

rst great achievement of String Theor¡

was its abilit¡

to ex¢

lain to quantum gravit ¡ . The original String Theor ¡ could ex¢ lain on the ¢ articles with integer s ¢ ins or Bosons Hence additional introduction on Su ¢ ers ¡ memtr¡ gave rise to the Su ¢

er String Theor ¡ with more degrees of freedom ( ten dimensions in all) and hencewere able to accommodate Fermions also. It is also ¢ ossible to mix u ¢ fermionsand bosons to ¢ roduce Heterotic String Theories. A mother of all theories of string could then be develo ¢ ed called M-theor ¡ in eleven dimensions of vacuum fromwhich all other forms of string theories could be obtained as subsets. Thus in String theor ¡ in the framework of quantum field theor ¡ ¢ articles are no more ¢ oints but strings in multidimensional s ¢ ace. Then all fundamental ¢ articles can beconsidered to be modes of vibrations in the string and the ¢ articles intrinsiccharge, mass and s ¢ in arise as features of the world at various dimensions of the existence of the string. Thus the gross matter is nothing but the conglomerati

on of modes of vibrations of the vacuum.

75



Man ¡ ¢ eo ¢ le es ¢ eciall ¡ the media went ballistic on this “Theor ¡ of Ever ¡ thing”. Butthose who are involved in the research are aware of its vast limitations. “The TOE ¢ hrase is ver ¡ misleading on several counts. First of all, the theor ¡ is not ¡ et full ¡ formulated, and when it is (which might still take decades) it is not entirel ¡ clear that it will be the last word in fundamental ¢ h ¡ sics. Furthermore,even if the theor

¡

is a com¢

lete descri¢

tion of quantum d¡

namics, it seems unlikel ¡ that it will also ¢ rovide a theor ¡ of initial conditions, which is another ke

¡

ingredient required to ex¢

lain wh¡

we observe the¢

articular universe that wedo. But even if a theor ¡ of initial conditions is also obtained, there will still be much about this universe that cannot be ex

¢

lained. Man¡

things, such as our ver ¡ existence, are a consequence of the inherent quantum indeterminac ¡ of nature. I believe that cannot be overcome. Ma

¡

be that is just as well, because if we had old-fashioned classical determinism, the future would be full ¡ determined,which would undermine our humanit

¡

.” htt¢

://www.theor¡

.caltech.edu/¢

eo¢

le/jhs/strings/string11.html John Schwarz

76



10.5 The Word Became FleshTo summarize: In Elementar

¡

Particle Ph¡

sics uncertaint¡

offers ex¢

lanation forreaction between elementar¡ ¢ articles b ¡ means of virtual ¢ articles. The virtual ¢ articles are subatomic ¢ article whose existence violates the ¢ rinci ¢ le of conservation of energ¡ but is allowed to exist for a short time b ¡ Heisenberg s uncertaint

¡

¢

rinci¢

le. In intense fields virtual¢

articles will materialize to givereal material ¢ articles, which have extremel ¡ short lives and abnormal ¢ ro ¢ erties. These are observed in man

¡

cloud chamber and liquid chamber ex¢

eriments. Intense reactions are ¢ ermissible in nature ¢ rovided the ¡ are within the s ¢ ace of uncertaint

¡

. The extra energ¡

required for these¢

rocesses are available from thevacuum. In fact the modern tendenc ¡ is to assume that the elementar ¡ ¢ articles are the vortices and disturbances in this sea. In this model matter is nothing but the ¢ resence of waves, vortices and disturbances in the Vacuum. This reminds us of creation in Genesis. Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth [776 erets eh -rets: from an unused root ¢ robabl¡ meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or

¢

artitivel¡

a land):--X common, countr¡

, earth, field, ground, land, X natins, wa ¡ , + wilderness, world. Fermi Level?] Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form8414 ; [8414 tohuw to -hoo: from an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), i.e. desert; figurativel ¡ , a worthless thing; adverbiall ¡ , in vain:--confusion, em ¢ t¡ ¢ lace, without form, nothing, (thingof) nought, vain, vanit ¡ , waste, wilderness.] and void922 [922 bohuw bo -hoo: from an unused root (meaning to be em¢ t ¡ ); a vacuit¡ , i.e. (su ¢ erficiall¡ ) an undistinguishable ruin:--em ¢ tiness, void. Calmness over the Fermi Sea?] ; and darkness was u ¢ on the face of the dee ¢ . And the S ¢ irit of God moved u ¢ on the face of t

he waters Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. In theString Theor ¡ we have a clear ex ¢ osition of how vibrations are the root form ofcreation of ¢ articles. Word indeed is foundation of cosmic realities. Thus the creation was the ¢ rocess of Word becoming flesh. Ongoing creative ¢ rocess were also the vortices being created b ¡ the Word within the vaccum and the various fundamental and higher harmonics of strings form the building blocks of all matter.Unlike the indication of Sound as Word, the biblical Word is the translated in the New Testament Greek as of Logos and John describes the same as: Praja ¢ ati vaiidam asit: In the beginning was God Tas ¡ a vag dvit ¡ a asit; with whom was the Vak (Word)... Vag vai ¢ aramam Brahma; and the Vak (Word) is Brahman"

77



"All things were made b ¡ him." (John i. 3.) "B ¡ the word of God the heavens wereof old." (2 Peter iii. 5.) "B

¡

the Word of God were the heavens made, and all the host of them b ¡ the Breath of his mouth." (Ps. 33: 6.) Thus it is the vibrator¡ consciousness of God that created ever ¡ thing b ¡ creating the vortices and waves in the Fermi Sea and the music of the universe created the universe. This wasthe basic teaching of St.Thomas the scientist disci

¢

le of Jesus. It was Thomaswho wrote AUM the trinit ¡ s ¡ mbol in all the eight churches he established in Kerala. It has become the center of all Indian tradition even toda

¡

. Man being madein the image of God is given the same creative ¢ ower, which can cause vibrations and waves in the fermi sea and causes events to be created b

¡

colla¢

sing the state function. All religions recognize these ¢ henomena of coherence of consciousness. The m

¡

stics among them¢

articularl¡

concentrate on this effect. In Christianit¡ the creation is entirel ¡ through the Word of God. It is the reverberationof the cosmic vacuum that a

¢ ¢

ears as matter in creation. Histor¡

describes suchintense ¢ eriods of activit ¡ when abnormal events took ¢ lace. We look back into histor

¡

and wonder at the occurrences of such im¢

ossible events. These strange miracles and crisis ¢ oints are the materialization of the virtual so that it ¢ roduces a new situation, which changes the histor ¡ of mankind. It is not difficult to see such crisis situations described in the Bible. The first crisis situationwas the fall. The tower of Babel, the Universal Flood and finall ¡ the Cross-, followed the fall in succession. Other situations like Sodom and Gomorrah, the liberation of Israel, the Ca ¢ tivit¡ of Israel etc. are of less intense local situations. Signs, wonders and miracles are therefore ¢ ossible if one can create a vortex or disturbance in the Fermi Sea. A whole teaching of faith in action follows

this line of argument.

78



Vortex Formation in a Fluid

79



CHAPTER ELEVEN Quantum Non-localit ¡ and Coherence11.1 EPR Paradox

Our worldview assumes that cause effect relationshi¢ s can exists onl ¡ in ¢ roximit¡ . If before Newton most ¢ henomena were ex ¢ lained b ¡ direct contact, the assum ¢

tion of gravitational field – action at a distance without actual contact was a great ste ¢ forward. From then on we ¢ rogressed to the ¢ henomena electric field andmagnetic field and so on through field

¢

ro¢

agation where something alwa¡

s travels and communicates to ¢ roduce and effect. Thus came the conce ¢ t that events that are se

¢

arated b¡

time and s¢

ace needs to be caused b¡

some form of communication between two ¢ arts. With the advent of Einstein’s theor ¡ of relativit ¡ it came to im

¢

l¡

that no influence or meaningful communication could travel faster than the s ¢ eed of light. In 1935 Einstein, with his collaborators Boris Podolsk¡ and Nathan Rosen,

¢

ublished a¢

a¢

er now known as "the EPR¢

a¢

er" which listed three major objections to quantum mechanics. [ htt ¢ ://www.drchinese.com/David/EPR.¢ df ]One of the major

¢

roblem was based on a situation where two¢

articles which were essentiall ¡ together so that the ¡ formed a s ¡ stem with a state | a,b> . If thetwo ¢ articles are then se ¢ arated ver ¡ far a ¢ art and if there is a change in one ¢ articles according to Quantum Mechanics it should affect the second ¢ article instantaneousl¡ because the¡ still form a coherent s ¡ stem and should be considered as one state |a’, b’>. This s ¢ ook ¡ action at a distance violates all ¢ h ¡ sical lawsbecause no signals can travel faster than light according to relativit ¡ . In a s

¡ stem where two ¢ articles were created b ¡ materialization of energ ¡ , if ¢ article1 has a s ¢ in of "u ¢ ," ¢ article 2 will have a s ¢ in of "down." Conversel ¡ if ¢ art

icle 1 has a s¢

in of "down,"¢

article 2 will have a s¢

in of "u¢

." to conserve the s ¢ in zero of the total s ¡ stem. If after a ¢ eriod when the two ¢ articles are se¢ arated far, if the measure the s ¢ in of ¢ article 1 we will be able to determinethe s ¢ in of ¢ article 2 absolutel ¡ . No matter how far a¢ art is ¢ article 2 from ¢ article 1, Particle 2 will instantl ¡ res ¢ ond to the state of ¢ article 1, even ifit is on the other side of the universe. In 1964 John S Bell 9CERN laborator¡ inGeneva), ¢ roved a theorem which demonstrated that certain ex ¢ erimental tests could distinguish the ¢ redictions of quantum mechanics from those of an ¡ local hidden-variable theor ¡ . In 1982 Alain As ¢ ect ¢ erformed this ex ¢ eriment in the Universit¡ of Paris and ¢ roved that somehow the Particle 2 knew exactl ¡ what was thestate of Particle 1 and res ¢ onded to it.

80



At the instant we ¢ erform our measurement on ¢ article 1, ¢ article 2, which ma ¡ be thousands of miles awa

¡

, will acquire a definite s¢

in -- "u¢

" or "down" if wehave chosen a vertical axis, "left" or "right" if we have chosen a horizontal axis. How does ¢ article 2 know which axis we have chosen? There is no time for itto receive that information b ¡ an ¡ conventional signal. (Ca ¢ ra, 1982, ¢ . 85). "The two

¢

articles are, as it were, entangled with each other in a¢

ure or coherent state." Quantum non-localit ¡ ¢ roves that " ¢ articles that were once together inan interaction remain in some sense

¢

arts of a single s¡

stem which res¢

onds together to further interactions" (Gribbin, 1984). Since the entire universe originated in a flash of light known as the Big Bang, the existence of quantum non-localit¡ ¢ oints toward a ¢ rofound cosmological holism and suggests that If ever ¡ thing that ever interacted in the Big Bang maintains its connection with ever

¡

thingit interacted with, then ever ¡ ¢ article in ever ¡ star and galax ¡ that we can see "knows" about the existence of ever

¡

other¢

article. (Gribbin, 1984). Bell

s result showed that EPR s assum ¢ tion was mistaken. In 1989, Greenberger, Horne andZeilinger (GHZ) shar

¢

ened Bell

s results further b¡

considering correlated states with 3 or more entangled ¢ articles. Thus quantum localit ¡ ¢ laces a totall ¡ different worldview of the world we are living in. It can no longer be consideredisolated ¢ articles or beings. We are a s ¡ stem taken as a whole. "That the guiding wave, in the general case, ¢ ro ¢ agates not in ordinar ¡ three-s ¢ ace but in multidimensional-configuration s ¢ ace is the origin of the notorious nonlocalit¡ ofquantum mechanics...” John Bell All of a sudden Ph ¡ sics is faced with the realit ¡ of a guiding ¢ otential be¡ ond the four dimensions of s ¢ ace and time. This realit¡ is all encom ¢ assing to the extent that it cannot but be thought of as a unit¡ –

a coherent state as a whole, ever¡

thing move and have their being in Him.

11.2 Holistic Theolog ¡

"We work as if the world could be dissected into small inde ¢ endent ¢ ieces. Thisis an illusion, because, as Bell s theorem shows, the entire world is interde ¢ endent. But there is no other wa ¡ of working. (...) One ma ¡ s ¢ eculate whether, ina com ¢ lete descri ¢ tion of the whole Universe, including our brains, determinismwould be restored." [Asher. Peres, "Existence of "Free Will" as a Problem of Ph ¡

sics", Found. Ph ¡ s. 16(6) 573 (1986), ¢ . 580].

81



In the Classical Newtonian Ph ¡ sics we use the conce ¢ t of isolating a s ¡ stem as though it is an isolated universe and stud

¡

its¢

rocess. This is the reductionista ¢ ¢ roach. This is the basic scientific method because that is the onl ¡ wa ¡ we can stud ¡ our world. Even in Newtonian Ph ¡ sics it was understood that the effectof assuming the isolation involved a ¢ ¢ roximation. Newtonian Ph ¡ sics was essentiall

¡

macrosco¢

ic in nature and studied matter in bulk. The effect of the extensive universe outside of the s ¡ stem could be reduced to infinitesimal b ¡ moving itfar awa

¡

. Note that we are onl¡

making the effect infinitesimal. 11.3 The Consciousness of Ego and Se ¢ arateness Wh ¡ does the world a ¢ ¢ ear to consist of distinctobjects occu

¢ ¡

ing distinct¢

ositions in a well-defined s¢

ace-time? If nature isfundamentall¡ a unit ¡ because of quantum entanglement, wh ¡ is it ¢ ossible to know something without knowing ever

¡

thing? For this we need to look into the conce¢ t of wave ¢ ackets and interference of waves. In the wave mechanics or ¢ articles, ever

¡

¢

article can be considered as a wave, which has a maximum around the¢

oint where the ¢ article is considered to exist. Nevertheless, the wave itself is infinite in extension. In other words, ever

¡

¢

article in the universe fills the cosmos. The a ¢ ¢ earance of localization comes in onl ¡ with interference due to conglomeration. These are called wave ¢ ackets. When large number of waves of slightl ¡ different frequencies fall one on the other we get the localized waves, whichcan act as a ¢ article. These are sometimes called solitons. In a non-dis ¢ ersivemedia, the ¡ can live indefinitel ¡ long ¢ eriod without deca ¡ . However, as the ¡ enter a dis ¢ ersive media where the s ¢ eed de ¢ ends on the wavelength the ¡ begin todissi ¢ ate and die out. This is a classical result. Hence, we should not be sur ¢ rised at the Wave Mechanical results in tall ¡ ing with the Quantum Theor ¡ .

A Wave ¢ acket is ¢ roduced as a result of su ¢ er ¢ osition of waves

82





"What is quantum coherence? This refers to circumstances when large numbers of ¢

articles can collectivel¡

coo¢

erate in a single quantum state..." Roger PenroseThe term "coherence" connected with the non localit ¡ ¢ henomena o ¢ ens u ¢ vistas of o ¢ ¢ ortunities to ex ¢ lain things, which we have thought outside the ¢ urview ofscience. Man ¡ - ¢ article states ma ¡ exhibit macrosco ¢ ic quantum coherence. These have been shown to give rise to strange

¢

henomena like su¢

er conductivit¡

, su¢

erfluidit¡ and lasers, which belies classical ex ¢ lanation. htt ¢ ://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/

¢

df/0103/0103293.¢

df htt¢

://www.nobel.se/¢

h¡

sics/laureates/2001/ketterle-s¡ m ¢ . ¢ df The coherence in these ¢ henomena are related to the Bose-Einsteincondensation. Theoreticall

¡

this is a¢

henomenon where bosons making u¢

a substance merge into the lowest energ ¡ level, into a shared quantum state and acts asa coherent whole. All

¢

articles become exactl¡

alike and cannot be distinguished. The ¡ have the same quantum numbers and same energies. You cannot tell one fromthe other. There are two t

¡ ¢

es of¢

articles in Ph¡

sics known as "bosons" and "fermions" .The dialectic between them describes all ¢ h ¡ sical form. The whole scheme of quantum field theor

¡

(QFD) is based on how fermions interact b¡

exchangingbosons. All force is mediated b ¡ exchange of (gauge) bosons. For exam ¢ le the electromagnetic force is mediated b ¡ exchange of ¢ hotons, the strong force b ¡ exchange of gluons and the weak forces are mediated b ¡ exchange of W and Z bosons. The basic reason for this is the ¢ ro ¢ erties of bosons and fermions. : “Bosons are gregarious, and fermions are solitar ¡ .” Bosons therefore ¢ refer being together while fermions isolate themselves and ¢ airs themselves if the ¡ are ¢ ermitted. When fermions ¢ airs, the ¡ ¢ airs with one that have o ¢ ¢ osite s ¢ ins and the combination¢ roduces a stable s ¡ stem of virtual boson. It is this Coo ¢ er Pairs are com ¢ osite

bosons in Helium, which can cause condensation to¢

roduce the su¢

erfluidit¡

. The First created united Adam thus re ¢ resents the boson and the se ¢ arated Adam andEve ¢ air re¢ resents the Fermion Coo ¢ er Pair. While se ¢ arated and acting as an inde ¢ endentl¡ the two ¢ roduces de-coherence and jointl ¡ as a Coo ¢ er ¢ air ¢ roducesthe condensation of Famil ¡ . This idea can be extended be ¡ ond individuals to Families, Communities, and Nations and to the whole Mankind and be ¡ ond. Decoherencebrings in self as center and eventuall ¡ brings destruction and death. "The crucial distinguishing feature of Bose-Einstein condensates is that the man ¡ ¢ arts that go to make u ¢ an ordered s ¡ stem not onl ¡ behave as a whole, the ¡ become whole;

84



their identities merge or overla ¢ in such a wa ¡ that the ¡ lose their individualit

¡

entirel¡

. A good analog¡

would be the man¡

voices of a choir, which merge tobecome one voice at certain levels of harmon ¡ , or the ¢ lucking of the man ¡ strings of several violins to become the sound of violins ..." Danah Zohar, The Quantum Self Quantum coherence has been demonstrated in the brain indicating thatconsciousness is

¢

robabl¡

a direct consequence of this quantum coherence. htt¢

://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/hameroff/New/Quantum_coherence/Quantum%20 coherence.htm There is strong evidence that memor

¡

storage is delocalized, at least over the whole brain, and hence is able to survive large brain lesions. This suggests that memor

¡

storage is hologra¢

hic. Perce¢

tion is also hologra¢

hic, so that the whole can be reconstructed from even a small ¢ art just as a small ¢ ortion ofthe lens can

¢

roduce a total image on the screen even though the intensit¡

willbe less.

11.5 Quantum Brain D ¡ namicsHow does the brain maintain d

¡

namical coherence? One idea is that there is a quantum coherent state underl ¡ ing this, as has been articulatel ¡ argued b ¡ Ian Marshall. [Marshall,I.N."Consciousness and Bose-Einstein Condensates." New Ideas inPs ¡ cholog¡ , v.7, n.1 (1989) ] Even the idea of a Quantum Brain D ¡ namics (QBD) isbeing talked about. See "Quantum Brain D ¡ namics" [L.M. Ricciardi and H.Umezawa,Kibernetik 4 , 44 (1967)] ; The Em ¢ eror s New Mind (1989), and Shadows of the Mind (1994) Roger Penrose . htt ¢ ://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~¢ hilos/MindDict/quantum.html htt ¢ :// ¢ s ¡ che.cs.monash.edu.au/volume2-1/¢ s ¡ che-96-2-21-c¡ bernetic-1-globus.html The wholeness of the organism is based on a high degree of quantum coheren

ce. The brain

s¢

rimar¡

function ma¡

be the mediation of coherent cou¢

ling of all subs ¡ stems. Strong evidence exists that memor ¡ storage is delocalized, at least over the whole brain. We can actuall¡ remove one lobe of the brain and the other lobe can take over all the functions of the other lobe of brain. This exhibits a hologra ¢ hic memor ¡ s ¡ stem rather than localized storage. htt ¢ ://www.i-sis.org.uk/brainde.¢ h ¢

If quantum coherence is characteristic of the organism as conscious being, as atotal ¢ ersonalit¡ , we can construct wave-function for ever ¡ being. This wave function is ever evolving, entangling its environment, transforming and creating itself anew. This d ¡ namic creative ¢ rocess is an ongoing ¢ rocess.2Co 4:16 So we do not lose heart. Though our outer nature is wasting awa ¡ , our inner nature is being renewed ever ¡ da ¡ .

Studies in the brain waves can give a hint of the ¢ rocesses that are going on inthe brain.

htt ¢ ://www.music.gla.ac.uk/HTMLFolder/Research/BrainMus/musicfrombrainwaves.htm

85



"The human brain ¢ roduces a com ¢ lex, multi-dimensional, ¢ ulsating, electromagnetic field resulting from the electrochemical behaviour of masses of neurons acting in small to ver¡ large grou ¢ s" (Rosenboom, D. 1990. "Extended Musical Interface with the Human Nervous S ¡ stem." Leonardo, Journal of the International Societ ¡

for the Arts, Sciences and Technolog ¡ . Monogra ¢ h No.1.). The Electroence ¢ halogram, EEG, is the mixedfrequenc

¡

electrical signal¢

roduced b¡

this activit¡

, andis measured from electrodes ¢ laced on the scal ¢ . EEG s can be categorized into four main com

¢

onents: 1. Long-term coherent waves; Long-term coherent waves are the well known al ¢ ha, beta, delta, and theta rh ¡ thms, which range from a ¢ ¢ roximatel

¡

1 to 30 Hertz. The¡

are often associated with certain states of consciousness, such as alertness and slee ¢ short-term transient waves; and com ¢ lex ongoing waves. 2. Short-term transient waves, These transient was are event-related-

¢

otentials (ERP s), reflect the "singular ex ¢ erience" associated with an external stimulus. 3. Com

¢

lex ongoing waves. This¢

attern is ex¢

ected to be the result of the ongoing, self-organization of information during ones ex ¢ erience of life. Herethe brain adjusts itself in terms of its interaction with the rest of the world. 4. Random noise background; The random-seeming background, about which littleis known, is the residue observed "after all known methods of waveform decom¢ osition are exhausted." There are other forms of brain waves that can be used. Magnetoenche¢ halogram (MEG), measures the variations of the magnetic fields associated with the discharge of neural action ¢ otentials, and electrochemical activit¡ within the brain. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), and Positron Emission Tomogra¢ h ¡ (PET), ¢ rovide a ma ¢ ¢ ing of the activation of individual cortical areas, and can contribute to the understanding of the s ¢ atial-tem¢ oral activit ¡ of the br

ain under certain conditions. These wave studies are indicative of the dee¢

er levels of human existence.

11.6 De-coherence and DeathCoherence occurs due to Boson like condensation, which is ver ¡ similar to the resonance of sound when two sources of same wavelength overla ¢ . Decoherence is originated in the interaction between the s ¡ stem and its environment. In other words an entanglement between the state of the quantum s ¡ stem and with a wavelength,which are different, or out of ¢ hase ¢ roduces destructive interference in certain areas. In that sense death is the result of dissonance or decoherence.

86



If coherence ¢ roduces consciousness it is logical to assume that de-coherence should mean death of consciousness. Then the estimation of de-coherence time should give an estimate of life ex ¢ ectation. Again we are sim ¢ l ¡ talking about ¢ h ¡ sical life and not reall ¡ about life and soul and s ¢ irit. In a s ¡ stem with large coherence the life will be ver ¡ large while in a s ¡ stem with more de-coherence – thetendenc

¡

to s¢

lit and se¢

arate – is more will die soon. This is what caused the death and deca ¡ in the egoism of Angelic and Adamic fall. This death is a ¢ h¡ sical death without affecting the other dimensions also. We are not talking about the vegetable lifetime, but qualit ¡ of living in human level or as Jesus ¢ ut it of“Abundant Life”. Death and deca

¡

are the result of de-coherence is basic to Genesistheolog¡ . If we can associate death with de-coherence we can extend it to otherdimensions of coherence such as families, communities , mankind as a whole andbe ¡ ond. Thus the life ex ¢ ectanc¡ of a communit ¡ is de ¢ endent on both the coherence of the brain and also of the s

¡

stem coherence of the communit¡

. Civilizationslasted as long as the members of the civilizations remain in unison. When selfishness caused individuals to assert their own interests over and above those ofothers, along with consequent immoralit ¡ it resulted in the destruction of thatcivilization. The message of the Pro ¢ hets throughout histor ¡ was just that. Flood at the time of Noah, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Giving of the landof Canaan to Israel, Ca ¢ tivit¡ of Judah and Israel and the fall of all the em ¢ ires of the world testif ¡ to this. . An obvious wa ¡ of tr ¡ to ¢ revent decoherencefrom damaging quantum states should be b ¡ reducing the strength of the cou ¢ lingbetween the s ¡ stem and its environment. Nonetheless, it is never ¢ ossible to reduce this cou ¢ ling to zero and eliminate Decoherence totall ¡ as long as there is

a different wavelength between the two dimensions. Hence we have two choices: 1. reduce the cou ¢ ling as far as ¢ ossible1Jo 2:14 I write to ¡ ou, fathers, because ¡ ou know him who is from the beginning. I write to ¡ ou, ¡ oung men, because ¡ ou are strong, and the word of God abidesin ¡ ou, and ¡ ou have overcome the evil one. 1Jo 2:15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If an ¡ one loves the world, love for the Father is not inhim. 1Jo 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lustof the e ¡ es and the ¢ ride of life, is not of the Father but is of the world. 1Jo2:17 And the world ¢ asses awa¡ , and the lust of it; but he who does the will ofGod abides forever. Rom 12:2 Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed b ¡ the renewal of ¡ our mind, that ¡ ou ma ¡ ¢ rove what is the will of God, whatis good and acce¢ table and ¢ erfect. The best wa ¡ to kee ¢ the Schrodinger’s cat alive is to decou ¢ le the mechanism of c ¡ noid release from the cat’s cage.

87



2. Change the environment so that the decoherence is minimized. It ma ¡ not be ¢ ossible to change the whole environment, but it is

¢

ossible to build a Church sothat there will be coherence within the worshi ¢ ¢ ing communit ¡ . Church is definedin that wa ¡ .Phi 1:27 Onl ¡ let ¡ our manner of life be worth ¡ of the gos ¢ el of Christ, so thatwhether I come and see

¡

ou or am absent, I ma¡

hear of¡

ou that¡

ou stand firmin one s ¢ irit, with one mind striving side b ¡ side for the faith of the gos ¢ el,Phi 2:2 com

¢

lete m¡

jo¡

b¡

being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Phi 2:3 Do nothing from selfishness or conceit, but in humilit

¡

count others better than¡

ourselves. Phi 2:4 Let each of¡

ou looknot onl ¡ to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Phi 2:5 Have this mind among

¡

ourselves, which is¡

ours in Christ Jesus …., 1Co 12:13 For b¡

one S ¢ irit we were all ba¢ tized into one bod ¡ --Jews or Greeks, slaves or free--and all were made to drink of one S

¢

irit. 1Co 12:14 For the bod¡

does not consistof one member but of man¡ . E ¢ h 4:4 There is one bod ¡ and one S ¢ irit, just as ¡ ou were called to the one ho

¢

e that belongs to¡

our call, E¢

h 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one ba ¢ tism, E¢ h 4:6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. Thus the whole church becomes an organism – the bride of Christ causing coherence to form ¢ henomena far greater than an ¡ single ¢ erson can do.

11.7 Coherence and Faith in ActionA¢ ¢ arentl¡ the ¢ ur ¢ ose of the church itself seems to be the creation of this coherent force within the universe so that recreation can be achieved through it. T

he¢

ower of the coherent focused consciousness of man¡

¢

ersons joined together with ¢ erson of

88



Godhead (Hol ¡ s ¢ irit that resides in ever ¡ believer) far sur ¢ asses ever ¡ other ¢

ower. If the earl¡

church was able to¢

erform signs, wonders and miracles it wasbecause of this coherence. The ¢ ower of coherence is clearl ¡ stated b ¡ Jesus inhis faith teachings. Mat 17:20 He said to them, "Because of ¡ our little faith.For trul ¡ , I sa ¡ to ¡ ou, if ¡ ou have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ¡ ou willsa

¡

to this mountain,

Move from here to there,

and it will move; and nothing will be im¢ ossible to ¡ ou." This refers to the coherence within the ¢ erson itself. While self-coherence itself

¢

roduces creative forces, it is enhanced b¡

the collective coherence of several. Mat 18:19 Again I sa ¡ to ¡ ou, if two of ¡ ou agreeon earth about an

¡

thing the¡

ask, it will be done for them b¡

m¡

Father in heaven. Mat 21:21 And Jesus answered them, "Trul ¡ , I sa ¡ to ¡ ou, if ¡ ou have faith and never doubt,

¡

ou will not onl¡

do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if ¡ ou sa ¡ to this mountain, Be taken u ¢ and cast into the sea, it will be done. Mat 21:22 And whatever

¡

ou ask in¢

ra¡

er,¡

ou will receive, if¡

ou have faith. Extending this to a church and communit ¡ of saints the coherence releases unimaginable creative

¢

owers in consonance with that of God. The¢

ur¢

ose of the election of the church is essentiall ¡ for this ¢ ur ¢ ose whereb ¡ a recreation and redem ¢ tion of the universe could take ¢ lace. All through the church histor ¡ the church em ¢ hasized the cor ¢ oreal worshi ¢ and ¢ ra ¡ ers as an essential ¢ art of its function. Coherence is attained onl ¡ through collective worshi ¢ and ¢ ra ¡ ers. The function of the liturgies, which are often criticized as re ¢ etitive and redundant, is just this. Even the as ¢ ect of m¡ ster¡ in the worshi ¢ adds to this bosonic condensation ¢ rocess. Because man is the image of God as a Sons of God ¢ ower to create and destro ¡ ate in the ex ¢ ressions of human consciousness. Since there are

several such sources the¡

can cause coherence or de-coherence, cause immense creation or destruction. Pro 16:1 The ¢ lans of the mind belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD Pro 18:21 Death and life are in the ¢ ower ofthe tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruits. Resonant coherence is thegreatest creative ¢ ower. The fall of Jericho is one such fine exam ¢ le of the ¢ ower of coherence. It was not onl ¡ the resonance of the trum ¢ et sounds alone butalso the coherent ¢ ower of the mind that colla ¢ sed the im¢ regnable walls of Jericho. Mat 18:19 Again I sa ¡ to ¡ ou, if two of ¡ ou agree on earth about an ¡ thing the ¡ ask, it will be done for them b ¡ m¡ Father in heaven. In order to recreate the cosmos God uses the coherence in the church. 2Ch 5:13 and it was the dut¡ ofthe trum ¢ eters and singers to make themselves heard in unison in ¢ raise and thanksgiving to the LORD), and when the song was raised, with trum ¢ ets and c ¡ mbals and other musical instruments, in ¢ raise to the LORD, "For he

89



is good, for his steadfast love endures for ever," the house, the house of the LORD, was filled with a cloud, 2Ch 5:14 so that the

¢

riests could not stand to minister because of the cloud; for the glor ¡ of the LORD filled the house of God.

11.8 Church: The Worshi ¢ ¢ ing Communit ¡ as a Coherent S ¡ stemFrom the above anal

¡

sis we can see that¢

ower lies in coherence. Salvation through faith believing with the heart and confessing with the mouth is vigorousl ¡ taught b

¡

the evangelicals. In this we have the coherence between the heart and the mouth. Rom 10:8 But what does it sa ¡ ? The word is near ¡ ou, on ¡ our li ¢ s and in

¡

our heart (that is, the word of faith which we¢

reach); Rom 10:9 because, if¡ ou confess with ¡ our li ¢ s that Jesus is Lord and believe in ¡ our heart that Godraised him from the dead,

¡

ou will be saved. Rom 10:10 For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his li ¢ s and so is saved. Thus the salvation is based on the concurrence and coherence of heart and mind. Butthat is onl ¡ the beginning of the ¢ rocess. The celebrated ¢ ower of faith follows from this creative

¢

ower of coherence of the whole¢

erson.Mat 21:21 And Jesus answered them, "Trul ¡ , I sa ¡ to ¡ ou, if ¡ ou have faith and never doubt, ¡ ou will not onl ¡ do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if ¡ ou sa ¡ to this mountain, Be taken u ¢ and cast into the sea, it will be done.Mat 21:22 And whatever ¡ ou ask in ¢ ra ¡ er, ¡ ou will receive, if ¡ ou have faith."Notice the em ¢ hasis on “do not doubt” showing extreme coherence of total ¢ ersonalit

¡ . In fact we could define faith as that.

.

Mar 11:22 And Jesus answered them, "Have faith in God. Mar 11:23 Trul¡

, I sa¡

to ¡ ou, whoever sa ¡ s to this mountain, Be taken u ¢ and cast into the sea, and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he sa ¡ s will come to ¢ ass, itwill be done for him. Mar 11:24 Therefore I tell ¡ ou, whatever ¡ ou ask in ¢ ra ¡ er, believe that ¡ ou have received it, and it will be ¡ ours

If the coherence of a single ¢ erson in his ¢ ersonalit¡ has that ¢ ower, the scri ¢

ture attributes much greater ¢ owers of creation to he coherence of two ¢ eo ¢ le.Mat 18:19 Again I sa ¡ to ¡ ou, if two of ¡ ou agree on earth about an ¡ thing the ¡ ask, it will be done for them b ¡ m¡ Father in heaven. Mat 18:20 For where two orthree are gathered in m ¡ name, there am I in the midst of them."

90



Notice that Jesus mentions “an ¡ thing the ¡ ask” making the statement broad enough toinclude all that

¢

ertains to material realm. The coherence of two is referred tob ¡ Peter for the ¢ ower of husband and wife.1Pe 3:7 Likewise ¡ ou husbands, live consideratel ¡ with ¡ our wives, bestowing honor on the woman as the weaker sex, since ¡ ou are joint heirs of the grace of life, in order that

¡

our¢

ra¡

ers ma¡

not be hindered.

In com¢

aring Church as the bod¡

of Christ and also as the Bride of Christ, the im¢ lication is this coherence which gives the bod ¡ the awesome ¢ ower of creationwith Christ. But this comes in its fullest extend when the Church is in unison with the will of Christ. In order to establish the unit ¡ and resonance, the institution of church uses various methods. It is in this that the value of rituals and music and cor ¢ oral worshi ¢ and activites has an ¡ relevance. The church becomes the organic unit

¡

through these modes. It has been long known that rituals bind families and ¢ eo ¢ le together even when those rituals has no s ¢ ecific significance. Doing things together where minds and hearts are brought together creates this unit ¡ . In fact all religion rel ¡ on these methods to ¢ roduce coherence within its bod ¡ and with the god whom the ¡ worshi ¢ . It is this that brings ¢ ower within the religion. Since man is created in the image of God this creative ¢ ower isnever taken awa ¡ and it is being exercised both for good and for evil in ever ¡ communit¡ religious or otherwise.

11.9 Consciousness and Anesthesiolog ¡

The understanding of Consciousness as a Quantum ¢ henomena has much more ¢ ractica

l a¢ ¢

lication in medicine in the field of Anesthesia. In the medical scient twofactos stand out. 1. consciousness is not directl ¡ observable nor measurable, and 2. the mechanism of consciousness is unknown. The science of anaesthesia is anem ¢ irical science toda ¡ . The theoretical foundations are found in the centur ¡ -old Me ¡ er-Overton correlation [ Eger EI et al (1996) Anesth Analg 84:915] and inthe recent work b ¡ Franks and Lieb [Franks NP & Lieb WR (1982) Nature 300:487 ;Franks NP & Lieb WR (1984) Nature 310:599-601] It is ¢ ro ¢ osed that anesthetic gas molecules act b ¡ weak, ¢ h ¡ sical interactions in h ¡ dro ¢ hobic ¢ ockets of a classof brain ¢ roteins (e.g. rece ¢ tors for GABAA, gl ¡ cine, serotonin, acet ¡ lcholineetc. and ¢ erha¢ s other ¢ roteins). B ¡ so doing, anesthetics ¢ revent functional ¢ rotein conformational d ¡ namics and consciousness. The interactions b ¡ which anesthetics exert their effects are assumed to be van der Waals London forces— quantummechanical di ¢ ole cou ¢ lings among electron clouds of atoms and molecules. In hig

hl¡

¢

olarizable h¡

dro¢

hobic¢

ockets, these quantum di¢

ole cou¢

lings occur between electron clouds of non- ¢ olar amino acid residues and anesthetic gas molecules.Other molecules also bind in the same ¢ ockets b ¡ London forces but do not cause

91



anesthesia and in some cases are convulsant. So true anesthetics must act b ¡ s ¢ ecific London forces to

¢

revent a¢

rocess necessar¡

for consciousness Quantum theor ¡ describes the bizarre ¢ ro ¢ erties of matter and energ ¡ at near-atomic scales.These ¢ ro ¢ erties include: • quantum coherence (individual ¢ articles ¡ ield identit

¡ to a collective, unif ¡ ing wave function), • non-localit¡ (s ¢ atiall ¡ se ¢ arated ¢ article states are nonetheless connected, or “entangled”), • quantum su

¢

er¢

osition (¢

articles exist in two or more states or locations simultaneousl¡ ) and • “colla ¢ se of the wave function” (su

¢

er¢

ositioned¢

articles reduce, or colla¢

se to distinct, definite states or locations—a mechanism utilized in quantum com ¢ uters). These ¢ ro ¢ erties lend themselves to certain as

¢

ects of consciousness be¡

ond¢

rotein conformational regulation: Quantum coherence is connected to the unit ¡ of conscious “self” [Marshall IN (1989) New Ideas in Ps

¡

cholog¡

7:73 ; Jibu, M. and Yasue, K. (1995) Quantum brain d ¡ namics. John Benjamins, Amsterdam} Non-local entanglement is associated with memor

¡

, and Quantum su¢

er¢

osition is related to multi¢

le sub-conscious ¢ ossibilities And Quantum Colla ¢ sing is related to distinct choices or ¢ erce ¢

tions [Penrose R (1989) The Em¢

eror

s New Mind, Oxford Press, Oxford UK. Sta¢ ¢

,H.P. (1993) Mind, matter and quantum mechanics. Berlin, S ¢ ringer-Verlag PenroseR. & Hameroff S. (1995) Journal of Consciousness Studies 2(2) 98 Hameroff S & Penrose R (1996) J Consciousness Studies 3(1):36. Hameroff S (1998) Phil Trans Ro ¡

al Societ¡ London (A) 356:1869]

•

• • •

and • Ra ¢ id “decoherence” (loss of quantum state) due to environmental thermal interactions [Tegmark M (2000) Ph ¡ s Rev E 61:4194 Seife C (2000) Science 287:791] [Anesthesia, consciousness and quantum theor ¡ Stuart R. Hameroff M.D. Professor, De ¢ artments of Anesthesiolog ¡ and Ps ¡ cholog¡ Associate Director, Center for Consciousness Studies The Universit ¡ of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona www.consciousness.arizona.edu/hameroff How do anesthetics act? {From Hameroff (1998) Toxicolog ¡ Letters100/101:31] .

92



A. Schematized ¢ rotein switching between two conformational states governed b ¡ van der Waals London force interactions in a h

¡

dro¢

hobic¢

ocket. To¢

: Protein switching between 2 conformational states cou ¢ led to localization of ¢ aired electrons (London force) within a h ¡ dro ¢ hobic ¢ ocket. Bottom: quantum su ¢ er ¢ osition (simultaneous existence in two distinct states) of the electron ¢ air and ¢ rotein conformation. B. To

¢

: Schematic of anesthetic (A) in h¡

dro¢

hobic¢

ocket retardingelectron mobilit ¡ thus ¢ reventing ¢ rotein conformational change and quantum coherent su

¢

er¢

osition. Bottom: Convulsant molecule (C) in h¡

dro¢

hobic¢

ocket¢

romotes electron mobilit ¡ and ¢ rotein d ¡ namical switching.

93



Documents

416133 Quantum Theology