"Science vs. Religion: What Scientist...

"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

There are 40826 comments on the Examiner.com story from Jan 22, 2012, titled "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think". In it, Examiner.com reports that:

It is fascinating to note that atheists boast that most scientists are atheists.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Examiner.com.

humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#9750 Jun 27, 2012
MAAT wrote:
Two different situations where discussed when HB posited his question to Aura mythra.
http://roxanne.roxanne.org/epr/index.html#tab...
Aspects experiment with two photons. Leading to the EPR paradox and Bell's solution.
The other was entanglement, as in two parts of one photon. pg 473 #9677 and last posts on the former page give a short summation.
Classical physics explanation to EPR is given in post #9686. In essence, there is no entanglement.
MAAT wrote:
None can observe nor set up a stable measurement system to know what happened in the first 0.01s (quagma-state) of the universe for it is too hot.
Most i theoretical physics is speculation to resolve speculation, but obviously some things can be put to the test. And usually the math will strive to get to observable and testable positions.
( a ket or Hermitian operator)
Apart from the BBT such things as dark matter, dark energy, strings a.s.o. are solutions for dissatisfaction with the BBT.
I like geons. ;)
Why do you assume that there was a first 0.01s of the universe?
MAAT wrote:
Absolute vacuum is an ideal environment for strings. Imperative in fact.
And I can say that in an hypothesis of "unobservable space bubbles" absolute vacuum is imperative for the bubbles. This is why they can not be observed.

So do your strings exist or not? Have they always existed? This is hypothetically speaking of course.
MAAT wrote:
But how would you measure or observe them, as polymath allready pointed out!
So you're back to invisible unicorns and dragon in the garage. How indeed would you measure or observe them. You know they're there though, don't you :)

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#9751 Jun 27, 2012
Multi World Interpretation. quote:
The way MWI, with a "real" wavefunction, and "deterministic" evolution, nevertheless gets out of Bell's theorem is simply this: in Bell's theorem, you need unique and definite outcomes at Alice and Bob for each experiment, and in MWI, that's not the case: Alice didn't see "up" or "down" ; there is AN alice which saw "up" and ANOTHER alice which saw "down". And the correlation only happens when A Bob compares his results with AN alice. But at that point, there is no distance anymore between them, and they can influence each other (that is to say, the probability to see a specific "alice and bob pair" can depend as well on the alice as on the bob under consideration).
In Bell's proof, you need a single definite outcome at both sides when they are still spacelike separated.

In other words, Bell assumes the "dice are thrown" at Alice and Bob. In MWI, the dice are never definitely thrown.

----------

vaneschJan18-09, 07:16 PM
I have just one question about your favourite MWI -

If a mosquito farted, would it create a whole universe?

You must understand what "universe" means in MWI: it means "essentially orthogonal term in the wavefunction". So "creating a universe" comes down to "splitting a single term into two others".

If you have something like |psi> = blah ...+|moon>|sun>|earth >|filled-mosquito>|ocean >...+....

then the explicit term is "one universe". Now, if your mosquito evolves into:
|filled-mosquito> ===> |farting-mosquito> +|constipated-mosquito>

and we fill this in the original wavefunction:

|psi> = blah ...+|moon>|sun>|earth >(|farting-mosquito> +|constipated-mosquito>)|oc ean>...+....

and we work this out, then:

|psi> = blah ...+|moon>|sun>|earth >|farting-mosquito>|ocea n> +|moon>|sun>|earth>|c onstipated-mosquito>|ocean > ...+....

and lo and behold, where we had 1 term, we now have 2 terms, so we "created a universe".

Yes.

end quote.
We must work with what we have thus.
Baby galaxies are interesting since they are just about the oldest objects we have without having (had) a black hole-generator.

Time-reversal is another solution given f.i. Nicolas Gisin's experiment.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#9752 Jun 27, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Classical physics explanation to EPR is given in post #9686. In essence, there is no entanglement.
<quoted text>
Why do you assume that there was a first 0.01s of the universe?
<quoted text>
And I can say that in an hypothesis of "unobservable space bubbles" absolute vacuum is imperative for the bubbles. This is why they can not be observed.
So do your strings exist or not? Have they always existed? This is hypothetically speaking of course.
<quoted text>
So you're back to invisible unicorns and dragon in the garage. How indeed would you measure or observe them. You know they're there though, don't you :)
Classical physics and entanglement go together as we tried to demonstrate by example ( scroll back to page 472-473

Let's recap quote:
[...i.e. all the effin rockets a.s.o] classical theory. Time slows down to compensate.

Now time slowing down seems paradoxical, but as long as nothing moves faster than c, everything's dandy. That means no information can be sent faster than c. No gravity or electric fields and especially not matter. If you can travel faster than c, suddenly you have contradicted yourself, because you can send a signal to another rocket and say "I have irrefutable evidence that YOU are the one who is slow." And the world is forced to distinguish between "at rest" and "moving."

So that's why light can't move faster than c.

The problem is that QM DOES allow things to move faster than c. But only in special ways. When you entangle two particles, they share a single quantum state. The particles can be split up physically in space. When one particle is measured, the state collapses for both particles. Suppose we have two particles in the state 1/sqrt 2 |+-> + 1/sqrt 2 |-+> That is, when you measure the particle, there is a 50% chance the first particle will be spin up and the second, spin down and a 50% chance where you get the reverse. When you measure one particle, the state collapses, and both particles have opposite spins. That means that the result of the measurement must travel to the other particle instantaneously to let it know what the result is. The only reason this kind of instantaneous influence is allowed is that the results of the measurement are random. Even though the influence is infinitely fast, there is no way to send any messages through it. Similarly, there is no way to tell using one particle to tell if the other particle has been measured yet. Flow of time is still, as far as either party can tell, entirely relative.

There is an important thought-experiment (which I'm not 100% clear on) called the Bell Theorem that deals with this issue.

----------

I am aware of Bell's it states that:

"No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics."

The thought experiment is valid, the experiment shows that indeed according to probability QM is non-local.

end quote.
note one particle is split.
So this has nothing to do with spinning a whole particle by polarization and conserving momentum.
EPR's solution forms a paradox. You are very welcome to read the site i provided on the Aspect experiment and the EPR paradox and Bell's 'solution'.

Because we have a blue zone, a nothing zone an a very hot backgroundradiation. So we can detect and speculate with some precision what happened till then. But what caused it?
We can not look beyond.

Space bubbles...i suppose they've got spin :)
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#9753 Jun 27, 2012
MAAT wrote:
Multi World Interpretation. quote:
The way MWI, with a "real" wavefunction, and "deterministic" evolution, nevertheless gets out of Bell's theorem is simply this: in Bell's theorem, you need unique and definite outcomes at Alice and Bob for each experiment, and in MWI, that's not the case: Alice didn't see "up" or "down" ; there is AN alice which saw "up" and ANOTHER alice which saw "down". And the correlation only happens when A Bob compares his results with AN alice. But at that point, there is no distance anymore between them, and they can influence each other (that is to say, the probability to see a specific "alice and bob pair" can depend as well on the alice as on the bob under consideration).
In Bell's proof, you need a single definite outcome at both sides when they are still spacelike separated.
In other words, Bell assumes the "dice are thrown" at Alice and Bob. In MWI, the dice are never definitely thrown.
----------
vaneschJan18-09, 07:16 PM
I have just one question about your favourite MWI -
If a mosquito farted, would it create a whole universe?
You must understand what "universe" means in MWI: it means "essentially orthogonal term in the wavefunction". So "creating a universe" comes down to "splitting a single term into two others".
If you have something like |psi> = blah ...+|moon>|sun>|earth >|filled-mosquito>|ocean >...+....
then the explicit term is "one universe". Now, if your mosquito evolves into:
|filled-mosquito> ===> |farting-mosquito> +|constipated-mosquito>
and we fill this in the original wavefunction:
|psi> = blah ...+|moon>|sun>|earth >(|farting-mosquito> +|constipated-mosquito>)|oc ean>...+....
and we work this out, then:
|psi> = blah ...+|moon>|sun>|earth >|farting-mosquito>|ocea n> +|moon>|sun>|earth>|c onstipated-mosquito>|ocean > ...+....
and lo and behold, where we had 1 term, we now have 2 terms, so we "created a universe".
Yes.
end quote.
We must work with what we have thus.
Baby galaxies are interesting since they are just about the oldest objects we have without having (had) a black hole-generator.
Time-reversal is another solution given f.i. Nicolas Gisin's experiment.
Oh, what a mess you managed to generate. Lets cut to the chase again.

Universe covers everything that exists. Here are the two contenders:
1. something has always existed
2. first there was absolutely NOTHING (no mechanisms, no strings, no energy, no matter, no structures) and then everything just popped into existence

Which one of the above two is more logical in your view?

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#9754 Jun 27, 2012
You can not send anything along with an entangled part.

Other solution for the observation:
CI copenhagen interpretation-description without collapse.
MWI as allready discussed.
Bohmian Mechanis(a.k.a. dBB)
Cramer's Transactional Interpretation
Relational Interpretation
Time Symmetric QM
(non)Hidden Variables

The observer would have what is called the Frog-view.
Bird's view would be seeing all branches of reality, there would be no hidden variables.
So some wonder if it is not that the theories are incomplete but seen from the wrong perpective.

Oh and Bohr said: "Stop telling God what to do with his dice."

But when speculating none is busy with proof or falsifying.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#9755 Jun 27, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, what a mess you managed to generate. Lets cut to the chase again.
Universe covers everything that exists. Here are the two contenders:
1. something has always existed
2. first there was absolutely NOTHING (no mechanisms, no strings, no energy, no matter, no structures) and then everything just popped into existence
Which one of the above two is more logical in your view?
I was about to call it a day and leave you hours of reading up.
I liked what chimney forwarded...infinite distance, gravity zero. in order for waves to have something to collide with.
But that means it is allready in the universe. So howfar can entanglement travel back in time...as far as any distance?

Is gravity a function of matter...what was the definition again?
Do such ideas as infinite and infinitesimal really exist?
Or are those just non-determined, non-physical math-toys?

Calling it a day.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#9756 Jun 27, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
So do agnostics like yourself.
Real and falsifiable? No facts there to speak of...
Not believing in God, or in anything with no supporting evidence, is not "agnostic". Not accepting ANY claim without evidence is skepticism. Including your claim that you have proof positive that God in any form cannot exist.

You have provided no meaningful answer to the considered, and non-confrontational, posts I sent you a couple of days back. All you can do is define "real" as "observed and measured", confuse this definition with "can/cannot exist", and then call anybody who does not share your views some sort of apostate. That is not rational skepticism, its zealotry.

So just answer my questions - did bacteria and galaxies exist before they were observable or measurable to humans? Also, today, the multiverse is not "real" because at the moment its just a conjecture that we have no way, yet, to observe or measure. Does that means it cannot exist?
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#9757 Jun 27, 2012
MAAT wrote:
I was about to call it a day and leave you hours of reading up.
I liked what chimney forwarded...infinite distance, gravity zero. in order for waves to have something to collide with.
But that means it is allready in the universe. So howfar can entanglement travel back in time...as far as any distance?
Is gravity a function of matter...what was the definition again?
Do such ideas as infinite and infinitesimal really exist?
Or are those just non-determined, non-physical math-toys?
Calling it a day.
Why do you ask me these questions? You're the one with the problem. To me all the evidence logically indicates that energy and matter have always existed in some form.

It seems to me that you are indeed trying to say that something has always existed. Is that what you're trying to say?

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#9758 Jun 27, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
And what evidence do you think supports a "big bang" over matter and energy having always existed?
The evidence for the big bang started with red shift and then the cosmic background radiation which matched predictions based on the calculations of the BB hypothesis. Since then, data has continued to pile up. Not to say it might not be modified in the future, but its a pretty secure theory in physics now.
If you have a total energy balance of something, you need energy separate from that balance to disrupt that balance.
Do you? That's a hypothesis, not a fact. A hypothesis, btw, that does not stack up too well against our understanding of virtual particles etc today.
If there is nothing, then nothing will disrupt that nothingness.
Well, that is a classical assumption but not one you can prove. However, another point is that the BB does not make ANY claims about what went before or even whether "before" is a meaningful term. Time may only be an artifact of this universe, not an underlying eternal truth.
Logically the current evidence forces to the conclusion that matter and energy can not have appeared from nothingness. They may have transformed from something else.
No, logically, the LACK of any current evidence forces us to accept that there are limitations to our knowledge, and we hope that more research and understanding will extend that knowledge to answer some of these questions. No point jumping to conclusions the way you do.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#9759 Jun 27, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
The evidence for the big bang started with red shift and then the cosmic background radiation which matched predictions based on the calculations of the BB hypothesis. Since then, data has continued to pile up. Not to say it might not be modified in the future, but its a pretty secure theory in physics now.
And why do you assume that the background radiation etc. has not always been there?
Chimney1 wrote:
Do you? That's a hypothesis, not a fact. A hypothesis, btw, that does not stack up too well against our understanding of virtual particles etc today.
We have observable evidence that to change anything energy is required.

Do you have observable evidence that some change could be made without any energy?
Chimney1 wrote:
Well, that is a classical assumption but not one you can prove. However, another point is that the BB does not make ANY claims about what went before or even whether "before" is a meaningful term. Time may only be an artifact of this universe, not an underlying eternal truth.
It is not an assumption. It is a logical scientific conclusion from all the observable evidence. We have no contradictory evidence.

Do you have _observable_ evidence to contradict the logical conclusion based on observable evidence?
Chimney1 wrote:
No, logically, the LACK of any current evidence forces us to accept that there are limitations to our knowledge, and we hope that more research and understanding will extend that knowledge to answer some of these questions. No point jumping to conclusions the way you do.
The scientific conservation laws have been hypothesized from observable evidence. Nothing _observable_ has contradicted it.

So why would YOU form a contradicting conclusion?
Why would you not make this conclusion of conservation of energy?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#9760 Jun 27, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, that is what stubborn children do. In their mind they're always correct.
I doubt I've ever said I was always correct. I leave that to you.
humble brother wrote:
Huh? It's a falsifiable hypothesis dealing with mathematics that children do not understand. Why do you think it is childish?
Overly simplistic then. Feel better now?
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#9761 Jun 27, 2012
MikeF wrote:
I doubt I've ever said I was always correct. I leave that to you.
If you are not correct in your own mind, why do you post those statements without any logical arguments supported by observable evidence?
MikeF wrote:
Overly simplistic then. Feel better now?
Do you think the model I presented is somehow overly simplistic? If you do, in what sense is it overly simplistic relative to other theories?

Is your philosophy such that the more complex option is always correct?
defender

United States

#9762 Jun 27, 2012
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>I recognize your foul stench, by your ISP.

Classic case of Jesus Love™ on display.

It is a pity the rest of the world calls what you spew forth, "hate".

Isn't it?
Anyone who doesn't buy your scientifically impossible theory is called a hater... A little proof would go a long way to help your cause...

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#9763 Jun 27, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are not correct in your own mind, why do you post those statements without any logical arguments supported by observable evidence?
That's not what I said.
humble brother wrote:
Do you think the model I presented is somehow overly simplistic? If you do, in what sense is it overly simplistic relative to other theories?
Is your philosophy such that the more complex option is always correct?
I'm quite familiar with Occam's razor, thank you very much and, no, the most complex option is not always correct. Neither is the more obvious,'common sense' one always correct.

I suspect when no one else is around, you argue with the nearest inanimate object.
defender

United States

#9764 Jun 27, 2012
Mar1980 wrote:
<quoted text>It took magic for our universe to exist? Hardly.. The big bang happened, that we know.. What happened before the big bang? We are still trying to figure out.. There are several theories astrophysicists are currently working on (string theory, m theory, multiverses etc.) They don't have it all figured out yet, and we may never figure it all out. One thing I'm certain is god had no part in the creation of our universe. There is not a single shred of evidence to support creationism and there never will be.
I'm glad you're certain God didn't create the universe... Cause I'm just as certain he did... Theories you cannot prove = minds you cannot move...
defender

United States

#9765 Jun 27, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>Singularities have need of such contradictory terms to explain them.

Go ahead and feel free to look up the astrophysics definition of singularity. But we expect you will not understand the implications of it. But this is exactly what everything came from.
Who is we?... You got a mouse in your pocket?... Fairy tales to make people feel better about themselves... Yours is faith not fact...
defender

United States

#9766 Jun 27, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>That is false. What is known is that the universe is observed to expand in an accelerating fashion. It is an hypothesis that physical matter suddenly appeared in a "big bang". It seems to me that this hypothesis is of religious origin. The scientific conservation laws indicate that energy and physical matter have no beginning. It would be quite silly to think that the universe was "created" or popped into existence out of nothing without any cause.

Mar1980 wrote, "
What happened before the big bang? We are still trying to figure out.. There are several theories astrophysicists are currently working on (string theory, m theory, multiverses etc.) They don't have it all figured out yet, and we may never figure it all out. One thing I'm certain is god had no part in the creation of our universe. There is not a single shred of evidence to support creationism and there never will be. "

Explaining something that can not be observed or measured is just pure speculation.
Speculation is all they have....
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#9767 Jun 27, 2012
MikeF wrote:
That's not what I said.
Let's probe this. When you make a statement, are you in your mind correct about the statement you make? Or do you make statements while not really thinking that the statement is correct?
MikeF wrote:
I'm quite familiar with Occam's razor, thank you very much and, no, the most complex option is not always correct. Neither is the more obvious,'common sense' one always correct.
I suspect when no one else is around, you argue with the nearest inanimate object.
Ok. Let's create an hypothetical scenario. There are two hypotheses to explain an natural phenomenon:

Hypothesis A explains the phenomenon through observable evidence which can be recreated in repeated experiments. This hypothesis can be tested in lab conditions via experiments.

Hypothesis B explains the phenomenon through observable evidence, but this hypothesis introduces something new and unknown which can not be tested in lab conditions.

Which one of these two hypotheses would be favored by Occam's razor?

“Lay off my space shoes.”

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#9768 Jun 27, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>I'm glad you're certain God didn't create the universe... Cause I'm just as certain he did... Theories you cannot prove = minds you cannot move...
The big bang has been tested, and there is plenty of evidence to back it up. It is currently the only explanation we have for the creation of our universe. Has your god hypotheses been tested? Do any scientists other than crackpot pseudoscientists support your god hypothesis? You make the claim your god created the universe. Prove it.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#9769 Jun 27, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The evidence for the big bang started with red shift and then the cosmic background radiation which matched predictions based on the calculations of the BB hypothesis. Since then, data has continued to pile up. Not to say it might not be modified in the future, but its a pretty secure theory in physics now.
<quoted text>
Do you? That's a hypothesis, not a fact. A hypothesis, btw, that does not stack up too well against our understanding of virtual particles etc today.
<quoted text>
Well, that is a classical assumption but not one you can prove. However, another point is that the BB does not make ANY claims about what went before or even whether "before" is a meaningful term. Time may only be an artifact of this universe, not an underlying eternal truth.
<quoted text>
No, logically, the LACK of any current evidence forces us to accept that there are limitations to our knowledge, and we hope that more research and understanding will extend that knowledge to answer some of these questions. No point jumping to conclusions the way you do.
I disregard your claim that gods are possible based upon lack of evidence. Come up with something Real and unfalsifiable or admit you're wrong.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Science / Technology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Hacked emails show Democratic party hostility t... 45 min gwww 338
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 2 hr nanoanomaly 10,618
Eleaf OPPO RTA---A Tank With A Buildable Deck 13 hr perty 1
How to Transfer SMS from Android to iPhone 16 hr aliceclinton123 1
How to recover text messages from iPhone 5s? (Sep '14) 16 hr aliceclinton123 3
News Wind energy sweeps plains; course correction in... (Jan '09) 20 hr bpayne37 21
Sql server database Thu valmostricay 1
More from around the web