Quantum theory has become very entwined with the new-age, as a kind of scientific grounding for it's 'theology.' In particular the notion, popularized in books like 'The Secret,' that our thoughts, intentions and attitude affect reality on an invisible level, bringing us whatever we wish to manifest in our lives by virtue of the inter-connectedness of everything. This is an ancient belief of Buddhism, and is also inherent in quantum mechanics, along with the notion that by observing reality, we change it. Although, as Christians, we recognize that everything is connected because everything comes from, and belongs to God, who is everywhere present and fills all things, we also believe that these things exist first in God's mind, not in ours. Quantum theory represents a break from the classical idea that creation is separate from it's creator, and allows for miraculous events such as time travel etc. from within the workings of creation, rather than by an over-riding of natures laws by God's will.
I tried very hard to understand QT for ages, and read a lot about it, but, like relativity, could never really wrap my head around it. Even it's proponents state clearly that QT cannot be understood rationally. It wasn't until I came across the work of these guys: http://www.commonsensescience.org/ that I read a really good refutation of QT and an alternative theory that actually works better, called the spinning charged ring theory of the electron.
Here is a little bit from the site:
Quantum Reality
Modern physicists do not have a single picture of "the way the world really is;" instead there are eight ideas of "quantum reality." These eight views of reality are quite different; yet all are considered by leading scientists to be valid, or a least successful in terms of explaining experiments.
Worldviews of Prominent Physicists and Philosophers
There is no deep reality.
Reality is created by observation.
Reality is an undivided wholeness.
Reality consists of a steadily increasing number of parallel universes.
The world obeys a non-human kind of reasoning.
The world is made of ordinary objects.
Consciousness creates reality.
The world is twofold, consisting of potentials and actualities
Scientists will admit that quantum theories do not correspond to "common sense"---meaning, the law of cause and effect. The principal features of quantum theory contradict "cause and effect" relationships by assuming that random, spontaneous events can and do occur within a quantified limit (specified by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle).
The majority of leading modern physicists seriously believe the first view; "There is no deep reality" and claim that there is no objective reality. For them, "physics is not physical, but metaphysical."
The common sense science people are are Christians, which is why you won't hear about their models and theories on the television (the worst place to seek an education in science.) One important point they make is that QT is based on point particles, particles with an infinitely small physical reality. Although this is clearly impossible, as everything created must take up space in some way, the mathematical models based on this assumption do correspond do a large degree with observation and experimentation. However, just because something works mathematically, does not mean it has a corresponding reality in the real world, it remains an abstraction even if it is able to predict observation, like the way the geocentric model still predicted planetary motions just as well as the heliocentric model does, even though one had Earth at the center and one had the sun at the center.
The same thing happens in Astronomy. Take dark matter for example. when it was observed that the stars at the edge of the galaxy rotated at the same speed as the stars at the center, this represented a breakdown of newtonian mechanics. The outer stars, according to the laws of gravity, should be rotating more slowly. Gravitational law was not in effect on the galactic scale as it was on the solar system scale. Instead of admitting that they did not understand how galaxies and their motion worked, the astronomers just added heaps more matter into the equations simulating galactic motion, called it dark matter (since it had never been, and couldn't be observed) and the computer simulations of galaxies matched the observation. But that does not mean that there is something called dark matter holding galaxies together so they work the way they do, it just shows that the astronomers were not able to admit that their theories had broken down and needed to be revised.
QT does the same thing. It relies on computer simulations, that scientists take for reality, in order to theorize about creation. Unfortunately, most of these popular scientists, who get to go on t.v, do not believe in a creator separate from the creation, and so they believe that all reality, even the invisible world, can be expressed mathematically, and even though they do not have the perfect equation yet, that can express the totality of how things work, they really do think that they are going to someday achieve that, but in their refusal to admit their ignorance, and the difficulty of getting research funded that lies outside the mainstream theories, they are only getting further and further away from the truth.
I highly recommend Orthodox Christians visit the common sense science website and read especially the 'Models of matter,' 'Science History' and 'Science philosophy,' sections of the site. Doing this enabled me to understand why I didn't have to try to force myself to accept QT, and that there are alternatives that are more consistent with a Christian worldview.
More and more the new-age, neo-pantheist movement is relying on QT to back up their worldview and it's good to be able to answer thier claims with a logical argument against it. If we simply accept QT or try to reconcile it with our faith, it becomes more difficult to debate new-agey people because while we struggle to integrate QT into Christian theology, for them it is a perfect fit.
Here is a bit more from the CSS site:
Our Consistent Approach to Life
The two worldviews of origins, development, and nature of physical reality are known as atomism and creationism. The former is basically pantheistic evolution, while the latter is the Judeo-Christian worldview. The fundamental beliefs of either philosophy of life require assumptions and a theory of matter to integrate science and religious beliefs.
Many investigative minds have noticed that the assumptions and conclusions of modern science based on quantum theory and Einstein's theory of relativity are very different from those of the classical science of Galileo, Newton, Ampere, Faraday, and Maxwell. The two systems of thought are mutually exclusive, although modern science tries to build upon classical science because (1) basic laws of classical science are too well established to ignore and (2) modern science would be incredible without the underlying support of classical science.
The assumptions of the Judeo-Christian worldview are compatible and generally identical with the assumptions and methods of classical science. This permits one to integrate his religion and science and have a consistent approach to life.
True science and Judeo-Christian approaches depend upon at least three underlying assumptions: The first unprovable assumption states that the world is real, and the human mind is capable of understanding the nature of that reality. Classical scientists believe that physical objects have an objective, on-going existence. Modern scientists of the Western world generally hold to a view of "quantum reality" that objects exist or come into existence through an observation or measurement. Cornell physicist N. David Mermin says, for example, "We now know that the moon is demonstrably not there when nobody looks." Many Eastern wise men and even some modern Western scientists take a similar but more subjective view that the only reality is the idea that exists in one's mind.
The second assumption of science specifies causality, the law of cause and effect. This is a rational or reasonable approach in the sense that events are preceded by a cause and happen because of a cause. For example, classical scientists use force laws to specify how one object can have an effect upon another object. Modern science claims, on the other hand, that objects can move, emit force, and emit light on a random and spontaneous basis, independent of any cause.
The third assumption of science postulates unity in the universe. This unity applies to two major areas of physics: force laws and the structure of matter. The force laws should hold for all scales, over nuclear or galactic distances. Spectral emission of hydrogen gas should be the same for hydrogen in a star or hydrogen on earth since the material structure is assumed to be the same. To some degree, modern science has departed from the concept of unity by specifying "strong" and "weak" forces that extend over a very short distance and only exist in the nucleus or when certain particles disintegrate.
