Does anyone know what the double slit experiment is? It might be pointing out that there is something greater than us.
- Thread starter pittsburghjoe
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2 Corinthians 5:21&version=ESV
2 Corinthians 5:21
For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
When it says "to be sin", could it mean physical?
2 Corinthians 5:21
For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
When it says "to be sin", could it mean physical?
No, because if that is true, then 1 John 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
if your theory is true, 1 John 3:5 is by definition wrong.
Christ was sinless, not a single sin found in Him. He became sin on the Cross at which point in time His perfect life was used as payment for our imperfect lives. (Hebrews 9:22)
This is also why we used Lambs for sacrifice as it was an animal that was sinless and perfect and yet was needed to show an example of what the payment of sin is.
Also note, when they chose the lamb it had to look perfect as well, this is another shadowing showing that Christ was perfect not only in His generations, but in the flesh.
if your theory is true, 1 John 3:5 is by definition wrong.
Christ was sinless, not a single sin found in Him. He became sin on the Cross at which point in time His perfect life was used as payment for our imperfect lives. (Hebrews 9:22)
This is also why we used Lambs for sacrifice as it was an animal that was sinless and perfect and yet was needed to show an example of what the payment of sin is.
Also note, when they chose the lamb it had to look perfect as well, this is another shadowing showing that Christ was perfect not only in His generations, but in the flesh.
-
2
- Show all
Maybe not, but you have juxtapositioned the physical against the spiritual and said one is sin and the other is not... that anything physical is disordered with entropy, that just being here is sin, even that energy is sin. So God in your view is sin. There's no escaping that conclusion.
And you want to believe you can wake half the world with your vain philosophy.
Totally un-Biblical view. People come to faith by hearing and believing the gospel.
And you want to believe you can wake half the world with your vain philosophy.
Totally un-Biblical view. People come to faith by hearing and believing the gospel.
um, no --
first of all, coherence/decohernence is just a comparison between any two things. the single-slit & double slit experiments can be performed with individual photons and you still get either particle like or wave-like behavior depending on if the photon is observed or not. a single photon does not have coherence properties because coherence is a measure of two or more things; it's nonsensical to speak of an individual thing having definite phase difference with itself. if you insist on using coherence to describe an individual then all things are coherent because all things are in definite phase with themselves at all times.
second of all the single & double slit experiments are independent of coherence ((setting aside for now the weirdness of entangled pairs and sending one of them through a slit while you observe the other)). particle vs wavelike behavior in the slit experiments depends on a conscious observer, not definite phase difference with another entity over a time interval.
you can have a coherent set of photons and send them through a slit and get interference patterns.
you can have a coherent set of photons and send them through a slit and not get interference patterns.
the difference is observation.
i think you are mixing the common English definition of the word 'coherent' meaning 'understandable, logical, consistent' with the modern physics jargon 'coherence'
they're not the same thing.
Joe, where did you learn about quantum physics?
first of all, coherence/decohernence is just a comparison between any two things. the single-slit & double slit experiments can be performed with individual photons and you still get either particle like or wave-like behavior depending on if the photon is observed or not. a single photon does not have coherence properties because coherence is a measure of two or more things; it's nonsensical to speak of an individual thing having definite phase difference with itself. if you insist on using coherence to describe an individual then all things are coherent because all things are in definite phase with themselves at all times.
second of all the single & double slit experiments are independent of coherence ((setting aside for now the weirdness of entangled pairs and sending one of them through a slit while you observe the other)). particle vs wavelike behavior in the slit experiments depends on a conscious observer, not definite phase difference with another entity over a time interval.
you can have a coherent set of photons and send them through a slit and get interference patterns.
you can have a coherent set of photons and send them through a slit and not get interference patterns.
the difference is observation.
i think you are mixing the common English definition of the word 'coherent' meaning 'understandable, logical, consistent' with the modern physics jargon 'coherence'
they're not the same thing.
Joe, where did you learn about quantum physics?
-
1
- Show all