Should we understand that religious scientists are persecuted ?

Please realize that it does not make any sense
Have you ever heard about rhe Pascal's bet ?

If you believe in God and He exists , you win
If He does not exist , you dont lose

The " free thinkers " are tollerant and honest people by definition simply because they have nothing to gain but a lot to lose if they are wrong

Can you tell the same about religious people , either Christian or muslins ?

Good point Alberto, but scientists are under a lot of pressure from their peers to conform to well accepted theories, any scientist who dares to question evolution for example is risking becoming an outcast and suffering from ridicule as well as ruining their career.

I don't know what your talking about, math is full of proofs.

If something doesn't make sense it just doesn't make sense. the heisenberg uncertainty states that we cannot know the precise location of sub atomic particles like electrons because basically by the time we figure out a way to view the particles, that method itself will move those particles, its sort of creates a unsolvable problem in that regard. However, how can you use that theory to prove that nothing can't exist? The measurability of a vacuum is determined by the size of space being measured. Certainly there are spaces where nothing exists, they dwell between the places that something exists. It is pretty clear to me at least. I guess Im a genius.

What I mean is that even though I believe in God does not mean that I disbelieve in all science, if I hated science then I would have to throw away my car and computer because they were built on scientific principles. I love science, and I love God. I can easily combine them.

If the theory of evolution was responsible for running my car's engine then perhaps I would not doubt it.
No I'm not a scientist, I admit, I want to be a COMPUTER scientist, because computer science deals with more applied concepts. I don't like areas of science as much which are subject to people's opinions.

Right. I understand what you are trying to define what a vacuum is, I can agree with that definition, however I am not understanding how you are connecting the Hesienberg uncertainty principle with some sort of proof that a vacuum cannot exist. Perhaps you can recommend a book, what book is the original source of your idea?

The foundations of Math , in particula geometry , are the " postulates "
This term derive from the latin verb for " to ask "
You are asked to accept some initial assumptions

It does not make sense to wonder whether these assumptions are true or false
same as you would not ask why the bishop in the game of chess can move only along the diagonals

When a mathematician claims that a theorem is true he actually means that it is consistent with the initial assumptions i.e. with the rules of the game

Physics, chemestry, bio etc on the contrary are based on real facts




Well, it was not, of course, a personal interpretation .
Quantum mechanics has completely revised our " common sense " or " intuitive " concept of space and vacuum

A common misinterpretation of the Heisemberg's principle is the following

Many people assume that it is strictly " measuring " related
In other words
If you try to measure the position \ speed of a particle than you disturb the system, consequently the original position \ speed gets lost for ever

If so, it would be a trivial claim

The indetermination is alwayes valid regardless of the presence of an observer

Consider a box of volume V
You scan the box in a period of time T
You find that inside the box there is a particle

You reduce and reduce V and T
You may expect to find , sooner or later ,an empty box
On the contrary the box remains alwayes full but the uncertainity about its speed increases since the uncertainity about its position decreases

The consequences are drammatic

In an atom, the space between the nucleus and the electrons should not be empty
This has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt
The orbit of the electrons can be exactly calculated assuming that they collide with some " virtual " particles along their path

Let's come to the " common sense " issue

The point is that you speak of " particle " same as it were a real entity

Atomic physics use terms such as "particle" or "waves "to describe the atomic world due to the fact that human beings can reason only by analogies
However it is a mistake to assume that a proton or an elctron or a virtual particle is really a particle ( or a wave )
Actualy we dont know what these entities are , being beyond our experience

For this reason you must beware of the so called " coomon sense " rather you must accept the result of the experiments even though they are not intuitive

Finally , you may read the " Elegant universe " by Brian Green
It is focused on the string theory ( an umproven theory ) but the authors explains also in detail, the Heisemberg's principle

That was a very clear explanation, thank you. However, I still have questions:

1)Are you proposing that the electrons are always colliding with virtual particles?

2)You also believe that these particles are not matter at all? But that these particles are something which we don't understand? Well if they are not matter, and if they are something which we don't understand than they are super-natural? They are magic particles?

Regardless I don;t think you understand how that this causes the original problem to shift. Lets pretend that the magic particles are responsible for the matter which we do understand, this only begs the question: Where do the magic particles come from?




I have never heard of such a proof, where is the original source of this?

I will take the time to do this Alberto, but I hope it illuminates some of the ideas you wish to promote.
Physics and chemistry are based on mainly real facts, but biology, especially evolution, is based upon many facts which cannot be verified. Computer science is also a science which is very much based upon real facts--more so than physics or chemistry. When I first went to school a couple of years ago I was originally interested in biology, but I have since found too much uncertainty in the field, recently I have switched to computer science because I want to program computers, I am also majoring in mathematics so that I can understand 3d graphics programming. I find math and computer science very satisfying because there is little place for people's subjective opinions.


Not at all, most of the proofs that I read have nothing to do with axioms, those proofs which include simple geometry postulates are really just for high school geometry class.


But there is one major error in your posts. You keep talking about math based upon fundamental postulates, but those fundamental postulates are all based upon common sense and intuition, so your entire theory that we must abandon intuition and common sense undermines all the initial postulates of mathematics. Ultimately all of mathematics is based upon common sense and intuition and logic, therefore there is no reason to believe in theories which abandon common sense.

First of all I dont dare to propose anything, here we are at the limits of human knowledge
I just try to report what the " state of art " of modern physics is

The term " matter " by itself is not a scientific term
How can you measure the quantiy of matter ?
You can measure mass, energy, speed etc but not matter

However if for matter you mean the ordinary matter ( rocks, wood, meat etc ) it is evident that the virtual particles are not matter
Ordinary matter is made of protons, neutrons and electrons, only

You know for sure that in particle accelerator and in cosmic radiations you can find a lot of particles which are not ordinary " matter " as well
Would you define them " super natural " or " magic " particles
I dont think so

The same for virtual particles
The term " virtual " can be deceiving
They are " real" particles
They are called " virtual " due to the fact that you can not detect them because of their short life span but their existance is proved by their effects, for example the collision with the electrons




I am sure you got the point even though you may be disappointed

The virtual particles have not been discovered
If so , you can reasonably ask the question:

where do they come from ?

The existance of the virtual particles has been predicted
not only, according to the theory, supported by evidence, they must exist everywhere and every time
This make a huge difference
It may entail that the " existance " is a normal rather than an exceptional status
In other words a creator is not strictly needed , unless you assume that a super natural creator is himself subjected to the physical laws
When God created the universe He was obliged , because of the Heisemebrg's principle, to make a thin plate vibrate in the deep space
A little be strange , dont you agree ?

Is it a non intuitive claim ?
Of course it is not, but common sense has been banned from modern physics since a long time




This is the subtle distinction that I tried to explain
Phylosophers have been telling a lot of nonsense for thousand years because they keep making a major error

They get started from " intuitive " assumptions rather than from the hard facts
They wrapp such banalities with esoteric expressions and more or less methaphisical speculations and they come to usless conclusions

The euclidian geometry which student are taught at school is also based on initial intuitive axioms but there is a big difference
Mathematician are aware of the domain of validity of their speculation

Right, I understand that you are just relating what your limited knowledge is about state of the art theories, but I'm not sure I can agree that you are also representing 'the limits of human knowledge', you can only represent the 'limits of AlbertoT's knowledge' and I can only represent the 'limits of nitro's knowledge' and I think that perhaps many of these internet discussions go far off into left field because certain individuals tend to believe that they know the extents of 'human knowledge' or that they know the extents of 'God knowledge'. So thats why I say what 'you' are proposing, because I do not accept you or any other individual as the voice of rationality and science. You are making propositions based upon your limited knowledge and yours and my knowledge is limited to how much we have learned from books and mathematical exersizes.

This is a very interesting question, and I don't find that sort of question as beyond common sense or intuition. Really this question opens up an unlimited set of possibilities which makes the concept of God much more understandable. Now with this understanding people can no longer discount God simply because they cannot see Him, because the property of invisibility is also shared with these strange undefinable particles. Who is to say God exists or doesn't exist? Maybe He is comprised of some particles, energy or quantum packets which we have yet to understand? Maybe He created the world with processes we don't yet understand. Its foolish and presumptous to assume that it cannot be true.

However in the final analysis of this thread giving yourself some mystery particles which must exist is a convenient way to turn the question of the Universe's existence into a tautology.

Mathematics is the foundation and basis of ALL true science.

All of those particles we can't see, we confirm exist through other means, such as infrared, gravitation, etc, etc.

Either that, or the particles are inferred by other models. They must exist, for example, to maintain the law of conservation of mass or energy.

There is no empirical evidence for a God nor are there any strong enough inferences. So science doesn't give a god any credit.



Its foolish to make "scientific" theories about unconfirmed objects (ex: God).

There are thousands of religions, which Creation are we to teach in a science class? Judeo-Christian? Islam? Hindu? Shinto? Wouldn't it be biased to teach only one of them? Evolution, on the other hand, is not a religion.

We have no idea if a God exists or if He doesn't, we also have no idea if there will be processes which God utilizes which we do not yet understand. Maybe God is made of a strange material which we haven't discovered. If new particle theory challenges all our notions of matter we can no longer be certain exactly what matter is, and we can therefore no longer be certain what non-matter is, therefore assuming God is matter or non-matter, and assuming that we understand all the processes of the Universe is presumptous.

Not YET it doesn't. But we don't know if any such evidence will ever exist, and assuming that it won't makes no sense to me. We can't possibly know right now, if we jump to conclusions about the existence or non-existence of God we are making assumptions.

Most people simply dont want God to exist because they are afraid of the moral consequences of such a thing. In other words, if hell and God were real everyone would freak out.

And so long as there is no evidence to support a god, science has to wait until there is evidence. Science works on empirical evidence. If a theory has no empirical evidence, it cannot be used, no matter if it is hypothetically possible.


And God, like everything else that is not supported by evidence, must be ignored by science until this evidence is revealed.

Science, unlike faith, goes by what you can empirically sense, not by what anyone believes.

TriNitroToluene thanks for admitting that you are only moral because of a reward (heaven)and isn't this what religion is about. All the evidence shows that there is no creator needed so why should a scientist add a creator, if the evidence points to no creator ? Just for your pleasure ? You haven't even understood the concept of science, it is not about subjective feelings or extraordinary claims its about evidence and handling it in an objective manner.

Its seems to me pretty obvious that you are trying to play the fear and hurt feelings card but that are the most subjective things you can possibly bring up in such a discussion. But what do you got left you have no evidence to prove your claim just a bunch of fairy tales and the old hurt feelings and hell card, what a bad argument.

Do you really think that there is a major conspiracy from all of science just to piss off Jesus or the “Invisible Man in the Sky” ?

You always have to ask yourself “What is more likely that all the natural laws are altered when it comes to religion or that your are simply mistaken ?