From Atheism to Faith in God: Part 7b - Imperfect experiments, perfect reality

From Atheism to openness to spirituality: The toppling of my 'science idol'

B. Quantum and chaos mechanics, from the imprecision of physics to a renewed focus on reality.

During my three years of intensive scientific studies in preparatory classes, not only did I learn about the inherent limits of mathematics, but also about the limits of physics.

The results and consequences of the scientific revolution, spearheaded by Copernicus and perfectly illustrated by Newton's law of gravitation, were immense. They presented the world as so orderly that you could not only predict the move of far away objects, like planets, but also predict and describe close or small movements, like the fall of an apple. 

These amazing results were supported by the partnership between mathematical models and physical experiments.
This was so impressive that it seemed possible to predict everything in this world.
Another consequence was that it seemed there was no possibility of any influence of God on the present. God's immanence was discarded as irrelevant. The only form of faith in God that could stand in front of this powerful model was a deist faith - the faith in a clockmaker that set up in place all the universe as a huge clock, this clock of the universe now functioning without the need or even possibility for the intervention of any 'spiritual being'.

I shared in the previous post about the discovery of a major limit about the mathematical model, a first result that directly challenged this belief in a clock-like world.
I would like to share now how I was deeply challenged in what I believed, through my learning of fundamental limits in the experimental method, and then in the matching of a mathematical model with the reality.

The beginning of the 20th century saw the development of a new branch of physics, called quantum mechanics. In this branch, fundamental assumptions of science would be challenged in major ways.

Observer and observed - then end of the faith in absolute obectivity in science

A key assumption of experimental science was that you can make precise measurements, in an objective way. That meant that scientists believed they could measure variables in an experiment without influencing this very experiment. Quantum mechanics results helped realize that if we go at a small enough level, the observer is influencing the observed experiment.

For instance, to see anything with our eyes we need light. We need first to send light on the object of our observation. This sent light produces a transformation of the object, like little balls of light (photons) hitting the object. If we then see light returning to us, what we see is the state of this object before the particles of light (photons) left the object. Thus, the light we sent has transformed the object ('hitting it'), and the returning light gives us a picture of the object in the past - just before the light left the object.

This means that the observer both transforms the object of the experiment, and does not have an absolutely precise observation of the object.

The Uncertainty Principle of Heisenberg

Another result of quantum mechanics had troubling consequences for me: Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
This principle states that you cannot know both the position and the momentum (=speed x mass) of a specific particle.
The mathematical form of this principle is: σx.σp ≥ h/4π
A consequence of this principle is that, for a specific particle, you cannot know both the speed and position at the same time.

I like to describe this principle with the illustration of a wet soap. A particle is a little like a wet soap: if you try to be sure of its position and squeeze it hard, it will then slide speedily out of your hands. On the other side, if you don't want it to fly away you have to accept that you don't squeeze it too hard and are not sure of its precise position.
Particles are a little like this wet soap. The more precise their position, the more unknown their speed. The more precise their speed, the less precise their position.

This result leads, like the influence of the observer, to the impossibility of an absolutely precise experiment.
Some would be tempted to say that these two results, Heisenberg's principle and the influence of the observer, have not much impact in real life. Since they are valid for tiny moves of particles, it will not change the move or real-life sized objects. This would be right, if there was not what is called in physics unstable phenomenons, as illustrated in chaos theory.

Chaos theory: the butterfly effect

In chaos theory, the butterfly effect describes how a small change in the state of a particle or object can produce a large difference. This relates to what is sometimes called 'unstable phenomenons'.
A famous illustration, the origin of this name, is that the flap of a butterfly's wings in Brazil could set off a Tornado in Texas.

This means that a very slight difference in the initial conditions of an experiment can produce immense changes. 

The limit of the scientific model, and the end of my idolatry of science

The combination of the quantum mechanics limit in the precision of the initial position of a particle on one hand, and the butterfly effect on the other hand, imply that science is not able to predict a long time in advance what will happen in this world.
Research programs like long-term meteorology previsions have disappeared.

For all practical purpose, this lead to a death sentence of a mechanistic or deterministic view of the universe. Whatever the progress in science, the scientific models will not be able to determine what will happen, except in simple situations. In some ways, this led to the end of the string of scientific victories that seemed to prove that science could master reality.

In the same way that Kepler and then Newton proved that mathematics could give an efficient model of far away and near movements, now the quantum mechanics and butterfly effect were showing that we cannot access to precise measurements either for near movements or for their far away consequences

My faith in science had been rooted in the victories of the scientific revolution. Now, this very faith was uprooted by further scientific discoveries. After all, the mathematical model was not able to justify either the hope of perfection in itself (Godels' theorems) or its ability to reach the foundation of reality (quantum and chaos theories)

This was a huge disappointment for me. It led me to a defiance for science and its presentation. I felt betrayed by the so frequent cultural presentation of the power of science, as able to answer the fundamental questions of life and purpose in this world.

For years, this left a bitter taste in my mouth, when considering the role and cultural presentation of science. It is only years after my conversion to Christianity that I would find a more balanced respect and esteem for what science can accomplish, and what it cannot do.
I would then realize that science is a bad master, but still be very useful in our search for meaning in this world.
Science could not master reality, but could still be a humble and helpful servant of reality.

This disappointment in science grew in me as I was entering my Grande Ecole. Therefore, in the following years, I would be open to many things, in order to find meaning to this world and to my life.

In the next post, I will describe, during the years in my Grande Ecole, my first attempts to find peace and meaning in my life. I would search through sport, psychology, various philosophies and religions.