In other words, information about spin state was transferred between the two sub-particles instantly. Such transfer of quantum information apparently happens faster than the speed of light. Given that Einstein himself described quantum entanglement as "spooky action at a distance", I think all of us can be forgiven for finding this a rather bizarre effect.
So, there is something faster than the speed of light after all: quantum information. This doesn't prove or disprove God, but it can help us think of God in physical terms — maybe as a shower of entangled particles, transferring quantum information back and forth, and so occupying many places at the same time?
Even many universes at the same time? I have this image of God keeping galaxy-sized plates spinning while juggling planet-sized balls — tossing bits of information from one teetering universe to another, to keep everything in motion.
Fortunately, God can multitask — keeping the fabric of space and time in operation. All that is required is a little faith. Has this essay come close to answering the questions posed? I suspect not: if you believe in God as I do , then the idea of God being bound by the laws of physics is nonsense, because God can do everything, even travel faster than light.
If you don't believe in God, then the question is equally nonsensical, because there isn't a God and nothing can travel faster than light. Perhaps the question is really one for agnostics, who don't know whether there is a God. Does God spin galaxy-sized plates while juggling planetary balls?
This is indeed where science and religion differ. Science requires proof, religious belief requires faith. Scientists don't try to prove or disprove God's existence because they know there isn't an experiment that can ever detect God. And if you believe in God, it doesn't matter what scientists discover about the Universe — any cosmos can be thought of as being consistent with God.
Our views of God, physics or anything else ultimately depends on perspective. But let's end with a quotation from a truly authoritative source. No, it isn't the Bible. Nor is it a cosmology textbook. It's from Reaper Man by Terry Pratchett:.
No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it. This story has been amended to correct an error regarding the measurement of Megaparsecs.
It seeks to answer our readers' nagging questions about life, love, death and the Universe. We work with professional researchers who have dedicated their lives to uncovering new perspectives on the questions that shape our lives. If you have a question you would like to be answered, please email either send us a message on Facebook or Twitter or email bigquestions theconversation. Join one million Future fans by liking us on Facebook , or follow us on Twitter or Instagram.
If you liked this story, sign up for the weekly bbc. Life's Big Questions Physics. Can physics prove if God exists? Share using Email. From The Conversation. If there is a God, would they be bound by the laws of physics?
A grain of sand is as solid as a rock, but a million grains can flow through a funnel almost like water. And highway traffic can behave in a similar way, flowing freely until it becomes blocked at some bottleneck. Kerstin Nordstrom, a physicist at Mount Holyoke College. The former is good at explaining the motion of everything from golf balls to galaxies. Quantum mechanics is equally impressive in its own domain — the realm of atoms and subatomic particles.
Trouble is, the two theories describe our world in very different terms. In quantum mechanics, events unfold against a fixed backdrop of spacetime — while in general relativity, spacetime itself is flexible.
What would a quantum theory of curved space-time look like? For decades now, string theory — which pictures matter as made up of tiny vibrating strings or loops of energy — has been touted as the best bet for producing a unified theory of physics. But some physicists prefer loop quantum gravity , in which space itself is imagined to be made of tiny loops.
Each approach has enjoyed some success — techniques developed by string theorists, in particular, are proving useful for tackling certain difficult physics problems. But neither string theory or loop quantum gravity has been tested experimentally. For its first half-billion years, Earth was lifeless. Then life took hold, and it has thrived ever since.
But how did life arise? Before biological evolution began, scientists believe there was chemical evolution , with simple inorganic molecules reacting to form complex organic molecules, most likely in the oceans. But what kick-started this process in the first place? MIT physicist Dr. Jeremy England recently put forward a theory that attempts to explain the origin of life in terms of fundamental principles of physics.
In this view, life is the inevitable result of rising entropy. The idea is highly speculative. Recent computer simulations , however, may be lending support to it.
The simulations show that ordinary chemical reactions of the sort that would have been common on the newly formed Earth can lead to the creation of highly structured compounds — seemingly a crucial stepping-stone on the path to living organisms. What makes life so hard for physicists to study? Albert Einstein famously believed that, given some general principles, there is essentially a unique way to construct a consistent, functioning universe.
The current Standard Model of particle physics is indeed a tightly constructed mechanism with only a handful of ingredients. Yet instead of being unique, the universe seems to be one of an infinitude of possible worlds.
Furthermore, the Standard Model comes with 19 constants of nature — numbers like the mass and charge of the electron — that have to be measured in experiments. On the one hand, particle physics is a wonder of elegance; on the other hand, it is a just-so story. If our world is but one of many, how do we deal with the alternatives? Modern physicists embrace the vast space of possibilities and try to understand its overarching logic and interconnectedness. From gold diggers they have turned into geographers and geologists, mapping the landscape in detail and studying the forces that have shaped it.
The game changer that led to this switch of perspective has been string theory. At this moment it is the only viable candidate for a theory of nature able to describe all particles and forces, including gravity, while obeying the strict logical rules of quantum mechanics and relativity. The good news is that string theory has no free parameters. It has no dials that can be turned. The absence of any additional features leads to a radical consequence. All numbers in nature should be determined by physics itself.
Which brings us to the bad news. This is not unusual in physics. We traditionally distinguish between fundamental laws given by mathematical equations, and the solutions of these equations.
Typically, there are only a few laws, but an infinite number of solutions. They are crisp and elegant but describe an incredibly wide range of phenomena, from a falling apple to the orbit of the moon. If you know the initial conditions of a specific system, the power of these laws allows you to solve the equations and predict what is going to happen next. We do not expect, nor demand, an a priori unique solution that describes everything. In string theory, certain features of physics that we usually would consider laws of nature — such as specific particles and forces — are in fact solutions.
They are determined by the shape and size of hidden extra dimensions. Even the most awe-inspiring mountain vistas pale in comparison with the immensity of this space. Although its geography is only marginally understood, we know it has continents of huge dimensions.
One of the most tantalizing features is that possibly everything is connected — that is, every two models are connected by an unbroken path. By shaking the universe hard enough, we would be able to move from one possible world to another, changing what we consider the immutable laws of nature and the special combination of elementary particles that make up reality.
But how do we explore the vast landscape of physical models of the universe that might easily have hundreds of dimensions? Only at the very edges do we find habitable places.
0コメント