A Snowball's Chance

Ah, I ldo ove quantum physics. It's the strange scientific realm where everything is possible - and I do mean everything.
In the 'real world', if a ball bounces off a solid object or another ball, even if both of them are moving, we can say with certainty what will happen. Observe this same collision ten thousand times and every time the result will be the same - which is just as well if you're trying to learn how to play squash or pocket the eight-ball in pool.
Scale things down to the quantum level, however, and strange things start to happen. If we watch two particles colliding, for example, the outcome according to quantum physics becomes anything but certain and the predictability of conventional Newtonian science lets us down. Not only do things happen that we would expect to see happening, but things we wouldn't expect also happen, and occasionally things take place that seem completely impossible. In real-world terms, it would be like throwing a snowball at someone but having it turn aside in mid-air and miss the target. Or, even more bizarrely, flying straight back to smack you in the face.
Sounds insane, doesn't it? But these aren't the deranged ramblings of a mad theorist who ate too much cheese before settling down for the night; these are real, measurable effects.
At the quantum level of matter every outcome is possible, even the impossible ones, and if you watch for long enough you will see them actually happen. Thus it becomes impossible for us to say that in a given situation a particular outcome will occur; all we can do is quote the probability, or chance, of each concievable (and inconcievable) result.
This kind of thinking is weird and uncomfortable, so weird that even Einstein didn't like it and made his now famous assertion that "God does not play dice". Developments since then have shown, however, that God really does play dice - and He's very good at it.
One of the 'shouldn't-ever-happen-but-sometimes-does' effects that occur at the quantum level is really strange. To use a real-world example again, if we saw a car being driven at speed toward a solid wall what we'd expect would be a loud bang followed by the tinkle of falling glass and the quiet hiss of escaping steam. What we definitely wouldn't expect is for the car to pass through the wall as if it simply wasn't there and continue on it's way totally unaffected. Quantum particles do this sometimes; it's called tunneling. If moving particles hit a barrier, most of them get stopped but some pass straight through it, like the girl in the X-Men films who can walk through solid walls. It sounds quite insane, but it's an observable effect and it's coming to a smartphone near you.
This wierdness is harnessed in a material called QTC (Quantum Tunelling Composite) recently invented by a Yorkshire-based company and already licensed by two Japanese corporations that make components, particularly touch screens, for mobile phones and other portable devices. Embedded within the material are conductive nanoparticles which, if they were in contact, would allow the material to conduct electricity. It doesn't, however, because the particles are slightly separated - except for the tiny current that flows anyway because some of the electrons quantum-tunnel through the insulation that surrounds them. Compressing the material forces the conductive particles closer together, this increases the probability that tunneling will occur and so the current rises.
What does this give us? Pressure sensitive material!
Think of a touch screen that responds not only to the speed of the finger swiped across it but also to how hard the finger presses and how that pressure varies throughout the stroke. It would make the best of today's touch-screen devices seem as clumsy as a mechanical keyboard. Imagine also placing that material on the surface of a mechanical hand and giving it what we humans take for granted - touch sensitive skin. A robot with a hand like that would be able to sense how much pressure it was applying with it's fingers and adjust accordingly - enter the gentle robot surgeon, the kitchen helper that can hold an egg without crushing it, or the prosthetic that allows the wearer not just to move but also to feel. That's a massive improvement over a simple motorised claw, and it's all thanks to quantum physics.
Regular readers will be wondering if there's a spiritual angle to all this. Well, sometimes we humans gain a little knowledge and then become arrogant, strutting intellectually around God's universe like we own the place and telling him how He should behave. That's when God lets us discover something like quantum physics to show us that there's far more to Him and to the hidden mysteries He's created than we're ever likely to understand. As the book of Ecclesiastes so neatly puts it, "God is in Heaven and you are on the earth. Therefore let your words be few."
The Bible states, and quantum physics confirms, that "With God, nothing is impossible." So be careful next time you decide to throw a snowball, because if there's one thing that quantum physics shows us above all else, it's that God has a really mischievous sense of humour.

The Foam Strikes Back

A while ago I promised you an update on my experiences with the memory foam pillow. I know it's been a while, but I wanted to make very sure I was happy before I came back with an endorsement.
I'm still sleeping better and glad to find I'm not permanently tired like I used to be. Sleep is certainly an under-rated activity and something we probably all should be doing more of. But in my case it wasn't so much the quantity of sleep as the quality of it; I could sleep for ten hours and still wake up shattered, which was no good at all. The new pillow is helping, though.
I'm also glad to report that so far the pillow hasn't developed a head-shaped cavity. It has, though, become a little softer and more willing to mould - perhaps an indication that memory foam gets better with age and that you have to persevere to get the best from it.
All in all, then, the foam pillow has got to be the best forty quid I've ever spent, and if it ever becomes unserviceable I'll be getting another to replace it.
Hmm. I wonder what memory foam matresses are like?

Have Your Say?

So, Gordon Brown is suddenly anxious to make sure that we, the great British people, have the chance of a referendum on his proposed changes to the voting system.
That's nice.
Pity about all the other critical referenda that he and his Government carefully avoided giving us. There's the Lisbon Treaty (in violation of a manifesto promise), the war in Iraq, the identity card proposals and the question of whether expense-fiddling MPs should be thrown into the town stocks and pelted with rotting fruit to name just a few.
Let's face it - none of the current crop of politicians want to risk a possible public veto. They'd rather hide behind their election mandate and implement their ideology for five years regardless of what anybody thinks.
Yes, our political system does need to change. But not by tinkering with it so a bunch of ploiticians who know they're doomed can climb back onto the gravy train that much sooner. The change we really need is for politicians of all colours to realise their high office is a position of accountability and trust and that they are there not to build a career or make money but to serve those that elected them.

On Shaky Ground

The recent earthquake in Haiti was a terrible disaster which caused a lot of damage, and regrettably some of the recent comment about it on BBC Radio 4 has been rather similar.
It all Started on Wednesday's Today programme when John Humphries decided to interview a notable Anglican Archbishop about the tragedy. I was at work with the radio playing quietly in the background when Humphries threw the Archbishop the 'old chestnut' question; If there really is an all-powerful and loving God, why did he allow such death and destruction to happen? I pricked up my ears at this, turned up the volume and waited for the Archbishop to answer.
He didn't.
He waffled, manoeuvred and came out with such rarified theological vagueness that I had no idea what he was talking about.
"I'm sorry, Archbishop," Humphries said, "But I don't think I understood that, and you didn't answer the question. How could a loving God permit such a tragedy?"
Again he evaded the issue, and as the interview ended I was left shaking my head and thinking, 'If I was a non-believer, I'd walk away from that thinking that he didn't answer because he had no answer; that in the face of such suffering faith comes up empty and those who profess it are left with nothing to say.
That was bad enough, but in true 'unbiased' BBC fashion two days later Humphries replayed a clip of the Archbishop's flounderings and then wheeled out a humanist.
"Simple logic," he declared dismissively. "If God really existed, and was all-powerful and all-loving then there is no way he would have allowed this to happen. No earthly father who loved his children would build a home for them knowing it was dangerous; knowing the roof might fall in and crush them, knowing they were likely to suffer injury or death. No earthly parent would do that."
Ah, there it is. The mistake these people so often make is that they insist on building their tower of logic on a false foundation using only the bricks that happen to come in their favourite colour. And the Archbishop didn't help, because although the Bible offers clear and authoritative answers to these questions he didn't seem to know what they were. So the poor listeners were left to sift through the mess left by an expert who didn't know his subject and a fool who delicately left out the one thing that would otherwise have blown his argument to shreds.
No wonder our nation is in such spiritual darkness.
The flaw in the humanist's argument is this: God did not build a dangerous house for his children. In Genesis 1:31 we clearly see that after creating the heavens and the earth, the sea, the dry land, mankind and all of the animal kingdom, 'God saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good.' So when God created the world, it was perfect. The earth was a paradise, and life was a paradise. That's the way God always intended the human experience to be.
The reason the world is in the mess that it is today is because man broke it. After Adam and Eve rejected God in Genesis chapter 3 and chose to do their own thing (the Bible calls this 'sin'), God says in Genesis 3:17 "Cursed is the ground because of you..."
God begins to run down the consequences of their choice, but he does it with tears in his eyes. He's not saying 'You insignificant worms, since you've dared to disobey me I will now smite you with all these punishments'. Rather he cries, 'Children, don't you realise what you've done? Don't you know what you've brought upon yourselves?'
The Bible is very clear on this. Natural disasters, planetary distress, sickness, disease and death, accidents, misery, pain, injustice, hatred and every example of man's inhumanity to man is an inevitable outworking of man's original decision to turn his back on God.
John Humphries was asking the wrong question. If you really want to know what happened in Haiti then don't blame God. Blame the shopworker dipping into the till. Blame the feral youth assaulting the pensioner in the dark alley. Blame the businessman cheating on his wife. Blame the politician who misleads the people. Blame the persuasive speakers who use national prime-time radio to lead us ever further into spiritual darkness. Blame all who have ever lied, cheated, lusted, cursed, hated or hurt. Blame every one of us. Blame yourself.
Ouch.
Instead of admitting this, though, we rail at God. We shake our fists and accuse Him, we hurl our indignation into His face when all God has ever done is weep for this fallen world and the pain that fills it; pain that is a direct result of the fall of man.
But hang on, if God originally built the house safe and good but now it's dangerous, would a loving God leave His children there to suffer the consequences? Wouldn't an all-powerful God be able to step in somehow and fix it?
God did. He did the only thing that could be done to address such a grave problem. He intervened personally in the form of Jesus Christ to deal with the root cause - mankind's sin. The whole point of Christ's birth, life and death was not to start a religion but to rescue mankind from a mess that they could never fix by themselves. Just as the problem flows from a decision, God approaches every member of mankind individually (sensible if you think about it, since suffering is individual) and invites them to be a part of the answer. Yes it will take time, but when God's plan comes to fruition it will have been worth the wait. The book of Revelation tells us that on that day "God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away". On that day, Isaiah tells us, "the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the cub lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them." Romans 8 tells us that right now "the whole creation groans and suffers together" but when that day comes "the creation itself will also be set free from the bondage of decay into the glorious freedom of God's children".
Free-thinkers like our logical friend run screaming from such an answer, but if we apply the logic they're so fond of we see that in reality there is only one other option. Since the problem is sin, God must either save us from our sin or remove our ability to sin. He could do the latter by taking away our free will, by not having given us the capacity to think and choose in the first place. This would prevent us from bringing evil upon ourselves but only by reducing us from glorious creatures of judgement, intellect and appreciation made in the very image of God to little clockwork automatons mindlessly shuffling along our predestined courses in a perfect but nightmarish world.
When I was a boy I had a model railway which was very realistic. The trains ran through forests and fields beside a river that actually flowed, and they were always on time. Lights burned in the houses when darkness fell and even the windmill turned, but the people on those trains were nothing but ornaments. They never got on or off because they loved someone, cherished a great work of art, dreamed great dreams or wanted a day at the seaside. I, the omnipotent railway god, sat at my controls and everything moved at my design, but for all that activity there was no life. I don't think any self-respecting humanist would prefer such a solution. And quite frankly, neither would God.
So, having sorted that mess out, let's get to the real question that all the contributors on Radio 4 should have been asking. How should we respond to something as terrible as the earthquake in Haiti? Quite simply, our response should be the same as God's - compassion should move us to intervene and do all that we can to help. I've already visited the DEC website (http://www.dec.org.uk/). I pray you'll find it in your heart to do the same.

Big Brother

Have you seen the Big Brother house? Walls wreathed in flame, skulls, and a kitchen based around a mortuary slab with paintwork described as 'autopsy green', all to express that 'hell lies in others'.
And they call this reality television.
Pardon me, but exactly whose reality is this supposed to be representing? The zero point zero one percent of the population who regularly eat live babies for breakfast and have an unhealthy interest in the works of Aleister Crowley? Since the promoters of this vacuous tripe cannot by any means claim to be representing reality, the more worrying possibility is that in their quest to make money they end up influencing it.
What sort of society have we degenerated into when the most interesting thing we can think of is to watch a bunch of wannabee minor celebrities plunged into a contrived situation under carefully designed psychological pressure just so we can see who gropes who? When we laugh like horses as they posture and scheme to avoid eviction? Have we really toiled through the long night of five thousand years of social, intellectual and moral progress just for this?
As far as I'm concerned, the sooner this sort of stuff disappears from our screens the better.

Happy New Year

It's the time of year again for New Year's resolutions. You know the sort of thing; lose weight, exercise more, spend less - a thousand and one good intentions prompted by the purchase of a new calendar. Problem is though, the calendar usually lasts much longer than our resolve.
It's strange how we think that the new year provides special potential, that somehow we're much more able to change when the year does than at any other time. Truth is, though, that there's no difference between the minute before midnight on the 31st December and the one that comes after it. They're only man-made divisions of time and both provide the same sixty second's worth of opportunity.
When we make New Year's resolutions but fail to see them through we can fall into despair and think everything is lost, but in reality we can make a new start at any time. This is a great truth we often miss, and one that's worth remembering. Every day is a new day, and every morning brings new possibilities. So does every minute and every hour. You can't change the past, but you can shape the future, and every second that passes is a chance to strike out in a new direction.
This year, resolve not to be held back by negative thinking, small faith and past failures. Let go of old grudges, clinging resentments and the "I Can't" mentality. If you make up your mind to change on the inside, things will change on the outside. "With God, " the Bible says, "all things are possible," so even the giants you can't manage are possible with His help.
Be encouraged, my struggling friend, and press forward constantly for all God intends you to be, whether it's the first of January or the twenty-sixth of November. Refuse to give up, don't stop believing and never quit. That's the way to have a Happy New Year.

A Good Night's Sleep

Stella and I went out for a shopping-date yesterday, and after some superb Thai food we ended up in Dunelm Mill, a cornucopia of discount fabrics, homewares and soft furnishings at reasonable prices. There were loads of reductions in the Sale, so we went on a bargain hunt.
I headed straight for the bedding - strange behaviour, you might think, for a tools-and-gadget-loving male. Perhaps I should explain...
I have a problem with pillows. I've tried many in the past, looking for the one that will give me a consistently good night's sleep. They never deliver. The last one I bought was a 'rebound pillow', which was meant to return to its former shape time and again. After a few weeks, however, it ended up like all the others; supportive at the edges but with a void in the middle that no amount of tugging, pummeling or shaking could remedy.
Maybe I have a heavy head? Stella's head is about the same size and weight as mine but her pillows remain annoyingly serviceable. I've even tried stealing them, but once they get under my head they're doomed and the same cavity soon develops. Maybe I roll around or kneel up and repeatedly head-butt the pillow in my sleep? It's possible, but since I'm asleep I've no idea. What I do know, though, is that I've been waking up tired and with headaches and neck pain for months.
I'd heard of memory foam before. Apparently developed by NASA, it responds to your body and moulds itself to your shape before returning to normal when you get up. And it's usually quite expensive, so I was intrigued to find memory foam pillows in Dunelm Mill at discount prices. One pillow from their most expensive range was on display with an invitation to "touch me". So I did. I can't say I was impresssed.
My hand sank into it, and when I let go it popped back out, but it looked and felt and even smelled pretty much like a block of bog-standard foam I could have bought on the market for a couple of quid. Undecided, I stood there pushing and squashing it for a while, walked away then came back again and squished it some more. Surely there must be something to this memory foam thing?
Eventually, lured by a 50% discount and sheer nocturnal desperation, I bought it.
That same evening I put it on my bed and when night came I lowered my head, waiting for paradise.
It felt like a block of foam. My head sank in a bit and then stopped, so I lay there for a while, determined to give it a chance.
"Feels a lot firmer than my old pillow," I grumbled. Then I fell asleep.
My first thought when I woke up, though, was how comfortable I felt. I felt like I'd slept, too; there was no dull, slow awakening, no residual headache and my neck didn't hurt. Even now, six hours later as I sit typing, my neck feels better than it has in a long time.
Have I discovered the perfect pillow? Only time will tell, but if I have then it will have been money well spent, every penny of it. I'll report back in a few weeks, but in the meantime,
have you tried memory foam? If so, what did you think?