-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The big bang, something from nothing?
- Thread starter Dell
- Start date
j1i
Smiling is charity without giving money
I simply believe that God is one
The numbers start from one and that's what we've learned since the kids
It's when we start counting from one
The origin of existence is one
God is the number one, God began the existence and life
There is no religion in the world that says that God is one without division "for example"(trininty)I mean faith in God fraudulent ways in partnership
Religious practices in the world by indirectly magnifying creatures like god
This absurdity stems from the love of getting greatness and may this is a crime in the Heavenly Criminal Court
There is no interest to get errors, you are not interested and I have seen many scientists such as physics and those who are more knowledgeable, culture and knowledge surrender to Islam and enter it
Because they realize that the origin of existence is one, and that all religious proclamations with the existence of gods on earth are only films of science fiction (myth)
There is no need to doubt something that attracts the great to him
Yusuf Estes - Wikipedia
Jeffrey Lang
look at list
List of converts to Islam - Wikipedia
so I'm interesting about the god faith that is one without trininty
and this is the most important to me
j1i
Smiling is charity without giving money
Zero means no presence (nothingness)
There is nothing call modern mathematics
All that is in the subject is that human discovers ways of calculations (These sciences exist Millions of years ago)
The numbers that start from zero, are for the creatures created by God (because they were not exist
But in the end it is impossible to say that the origin of all existence is zero
He is God the Creator (Allah)
The origin of existence start from the one (God ) the greater, which is no one before him
Who did not give birth and was not born
Lord of the mighty
about who believe that god human or something in the earth
It is impossible to say that human beings live in the earth are gods, there is no field in mathematics to prove that 10$ is equivalent to a number with millions of zeros
The weight of a man equals the weight of the universe?
Praise be to God. The curriculum I practice is superior
With respect and appreciation
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
Science is a man-made tool of how to acquire knowledge from nature or from artificial invention.
Science didn’t exist “millions of years ago”, j1i.
For millennia, science were part of natural philosophy (eg Bronze Age Babylonian astronomy with star cataloguing), but the ancient Greek philosophers took science to the next level, by excluding superstitions, and by using maths and/or tests to verify what they were observing. The Muslims of the golden age improved on what the Greeks did before them, and the Renaissance science went step further than the Muslim philosophers, and so on.
It is called “progress”, each time advances were made, correcting the knowledge of the previous “enlightenment” or previous discovery.
But actual science (eg natural science) is much a more recent development of the last few centuries, particularly with development and use of the scientific method, and where science and philosophy became separate.
Science is a tool used to explain any phenomena, make some predictions, and then, to test both the explanation and predictions given, hence the scientific method.
If it failed the tests, then it isn’t science. But if tests are repeatedly successful, then there is a probability that explanation is true, which mean more testings are required for verification and validation.
In science, no theory, no hypothesis and no law cannot be challenged, because none of them are infallible or immutable.
Science is invention of man, not god.
You clearly don’t understand what science is.
Last edited:
j1i
Smiling is charity without giving money
It seems you can not understand the professional article like what i replayd before
My words did not Definition of science
I know that science is acquired and that there is useful science that promotes truth and change reality for the better
There are useless sciences that reinforce the reality of ignorance and change the truth and complicate human life
The consequences of which are the deviation of human morality and the support of a clueless way of life in the name of science
Science is a tool to find out facts and not to change the truth
I spoke about the numbers and the beginning of the one
It can not be argued that existence started from zero,
This strengthening the background of ignorance
Please do not try to detract from me because I do not believe in your superstitions
Science can not prove that everything started from zero
I know that modern mathematics is a name to describe the ways of different calculations in this age
But what i want to say for that replay is that the truth is one, that modern mathematics will not change
Oh god
I don’t like fakes advertising ideas by scientists
For example
If you are keen on mathematics, prove to me that Jesus or Buddha is God or anyone who lives on earth that he is God of mathematics. I know that you will try to pump the wrong material in the name of science (material toxic intellectual)
May there will be sophisticated mathematics that leads us to the fact that we are his God
Hahahah sorry
Thanks
Good luck
joelr
Well-Known Member
No, I mean the equations have so many infinities in them that they do not make sense. The equations do not describe what we see in reality so we have no quantum description of gravity. That was what I was referencing.
Gravity isn't infinite it follows the inverse square law.
We don't "reside" on this world we evolved to reside here. If gravity was different we would evolve differently to be able to live in that particular gravity.
There is no "problem", the infinities are a problem in a quantum theory of gravity.
joelr
Well-Known Member
What the heck are you talking about? First that isn't what energy is and second you appear to be just using a term from special relativity in a random way that doesn't even make sense?
Of course energy appears without a particle?? What do you think potential energy is?
What do you think a wavefunction has?
I didn't say anything about "zero" energy?? I said when energy is added to a field.
Zero point energy is a difference in classical and quantum energy states including the vacuum energy.
Uh, nope. The boson particles are the force carrier particles, there is a boson for each of the 4 fundamental forces.
Just look up bosons then look up potential energy. Bosons are not potential energy.
You do realize that light (photons) are bosons. So you are saying light is "potential energy"??
Are you just randomly googling stuff?
Are you all right?
This is what I said - "Some times people call light pure energy but light has heat energy and momentum energy it isnt' pure energy."
So people do call light pure energy. Light also DOES have energy and that energy is heat and momentum energy. This is all true. I didn't say anything about spin because there is no need to mention spin. The discussion is about energy. Spin is a particle phenomenon.
Frequency is a feature of the EM wave and again, not related to the discussion.
Light or EM radiation is made of photons AND also waves. This is wave/particle duality that all quantum objects have.
Your physics is horrible.
Uh, no, not at all. Momentum is not a "mystery".
And the conservation of energy isn't a mystery either. That's the part we understand.
Why are you coming at me with all this "Again, not quite accurate" and then posting random physics words in nonsensical order?
joelr
Well-Known Member
Quantum fields are different, you are thinking of a classical field.
I need to quote an answer for now. Which field are you asking about how it gets it's energy.
"Noether's theorem (energy conservation) is a statement about classical field theory. The "conserved quantity* being just a function of the fields is a classical field theoretical statement. And it is only in classical field theory that you should think of the fields encoding the state of the world.
In quantum field theory, the fields are no longer assingments of numbers to spacetime points, they are assignments of operators to spacetime points (or regions, really), and those operators act on the state of space. This state of space is distinct from the space of possible configurations of the fields, that is, in quantum field theory, the fields do not encode the state of the world. This is crucial, and why statements like "the energy is in the field" make sense classically (because the field really is what we encode a state with a certain energy in), but are non-sensical quantum mechanically. It's not so much that it is a false statement, it's not even wrong, it just doesn't even begin to be a meaningful statement in quantum field theory that could be true or false.
So, in the end, the energy, or whatever else, is "in the state". But a quantum state is an elusive object not amenable to our intuition. In ordinary QM, you might represent it as a wavefunction - the state itself is a function of all of space. In QFT, the dynamical variables are not just spatial position, but field themselves dependent on spacetime. So the analogon of the wavefunction is a so-called wave-functional, a complex-valued function of the fields. Just like the position in QM was not the state, and the energy is not "in the position", so are the fields not the same as the state, and the energy is not "in the fields". It's in the quantum state, of which I am afraid you will not get any concrete or intuitive description."
joelr
Well-Known Member
No that's great and all but you were saying that the science in the Qur'an was proof it's real so I'm saying what about the bad science?
I'm not saying anything about god, just that if you point to science examples to show a book is correct then the science examples that are completely wrong seem to nullify that idea.
Does that mean we will never have a quantum description of gravity?
And by that the inverse square law gravity continues getting weaker the further from the mass, but does not reduce to zero. In this universe, every mass is to some extent, effected by every other mass.
Reside : have one's permanent home in a particular place.
Obviously, had we evolved under different conditions we would have evolved differently.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
A few questions:
What happens when a photon strikes a particle of matter ?
What `holds` the particles together, what happens to the photon ?
What exerts the inertia in the way of `gravity` that keeps the particles together ?
What causes the photons to accelerate to light speed, from their `static` form ?
Why do photons form opposing waves into infinite directions from their origen ?
How many particles are needed to get to that `1` that begins everything ?
And on and on to NuffStuff.
What happens when a photon strikes a particle of matter ?
What `holds` the particles together, what happens to the photon ?
What exerts the inertia in the way of `gravity` that keeps the particles together ?
What causes the photons to accelerate to light speed, from their `static` form ?
Why do photons form opposing waves into infinite directions from their origen ?
How many particles are needed to get to that `1` that begins everything ?
And on and on to NuffStuff.
joelr
Well-Known Member
We probably will. Just right now it's a mess.
QUOTE="ChristineM, post: 5816063, member: 61711"]And by that the inverse square law gravity continues getting weaker the further from the mass, but does not reduce to zero. In this universe, every mass is to some extent, effected by every other mass.[/QUOTE]
For physical things once you get to the Planck length (-43 cm or around there) spacetime becomes fuzzy and under the strange effects of quantum fuzzyness. That is considered the limit to "smallness". At that scale things begin to not exist. Tricky to explain, look up the Planck length limit.
joelr
Well-Known Member
laymans answers from memory, could be subject to slight correction - photon strikes matter and the energy is absorbed. One thing that could happen is the electron goes up to a higher energy level.
Gluons of the strong force hold the nucleus together. Electrons are held to the nucleus in a similar way, by exchange of force carriers, in this case it's positive/negative charges mediated by virtual photons I guess.
Gravity and centrifugal forces do not apply at that scale. It's got more to do with weird quantum rules. The electron is actually a superposition cloud and it can't be in the nucleus because you can't have an exact position and momentum. Heisenburg uncertaintity principle.
They don't accelerate they start out going light speed. Everything goes the same speed when you take time and space into account.
Photons go zero in time and 100% in space (light speed) while matter has some of that movement diverted into time and has to go slower. But if matter starts to move through space it loses time - special relativity.
This is a fairly new way to look at light speed but I'm taking this concept right from physicists Paul Davies and a few others.
All particles act as waves until measured and forced to take 1 actual position. Then it acts like a particle going in 1 direction only.
10^60 particles in the universe I think?
The initial object wasn't a particle it was a ball of intense energy and spacetime - all of the energy and spacetime in the universe crunched into an object smaller than a proton. Weird and intense.
Physicists seem to think quarks might still exist in that state but I highly doubt it, everything was transformed into some type of energy.
Possibly even a type we are not familiar with, some quantum-super high level ball of energy that contains the potential for fields and spacetime to exist.
For physical things once you get to the Planck length (-43 cm or around there) spacetime becomes fuzzy and under the strange effects of quantum fuzzyness. That is considered the limit to "smallness". At that scale things begin to not exist. Tricky to explain, look up the Planck length limit.[/QUOTE]
Why? I already looked it up
hey Joelr
Are there electrons inside of photons ? And how do they get to a higher level ?
Has anyone seen a gluon ? What is in the nucleus of a photon ? And the `force carriers` ?
What is a `virtual photon` ? From where do they originate ? Can they be `static` before birth ?
I'll ask again:"What exerts the inertia in the way of `gravity` that keeps the particles together ?"
What is added when a photon strikes a particle of matter ?
From where does the inertia come that accelerates photons to full speed, from static form ?
What `holds` photons in their static form until energy is applied, in the form of inertia ?
In refering to an original `singularity` (the pseudo apparrant begining of `time`) what is quantum energy ?
10 to the 60th...really ?
Sorry about the question marks...I have really a lot of them !
Are there electrons inside of photons ? And how do they get to a higher level ?
Has anyone seen a gluon ? What is in the nucleus of a photon ? And the `force carriers` ?
What is a `virtual photon` ? From where do they originate ? Can they be `static` before birth ?
I'll ask again:"What exerts the inertia in the way of `gravity` that keeps the particles together ?"
What is added when a photon strikes a particle of matter ?
From where does the inertia come that accelerates photons to full speed, from static form ?
What `holds` photons in their static form until energy is applied, in the form of inertia ?
In refering to an original `singularity` (the pseudo apparrant begining of `time`) what is quantum energy ?
10 to the 60th...really ?
Sorry about the question marks...I have really a lot of them !
In QM, potential energy is the average energy of the carrier particles for the field. And yes, the energy is the fourth (time) component of the energy-momentum four-vector. If you think that is 'random', then please go study special relativity.
A wave function is NOT energy. In fact, the units are more closely related to probability (they are actually probability per unit volume after being squared).
Yes, photons are the boson associated the the electromagnetic field. The virtual photons that define that field also define the energy of that field. And the degree of interaction with those virtual photons is what defines the potential energy of a charged particle in that E&M field.
Light itself is not potential energy, but the energy of the photons for the E&M field and the degree of interaction with a charged particle *is* the potential energy.
Heat is an average kinetic energy of a system of particles. A single photon does not have *heat*. It does have energy and momentum (not momentum energy). Yes, spin is a particle phenomenon and photons are particles. They have spin 1.
Frequency is directly related to the energy of the photons. In particular, E=hv where v is the frequency and E is the energy of a photon. So, yes, it *is* related to the discussion of energy.
No, the waves are probability waves for detection of the particle. Light is not made of both. Both descriptions are equivalent.
Exactly how much physics have you studied and at what level? I've done the PhD qualifying exams and passed them. I have done a graduate level class in particle physics including the computation of reaction cross sections.
I'm not sure why you seem to think what I post is 'random' and 'nonsensical'. It is the standard physics you get at the graduate level. Maybe you should learn how to deal with the *real* aspects of QM as opposed to the popular treatments written by journalists?
Yes, the potential energy is mediated by photons for the E&M force.
Not completely true. In the s orbitals, there is a probability of being at the nucleus, which is part of what allows for electron capture beta decays. The p and d orbitals, however, have anode at the nucleus and so don't allow for electron capture.
This is a rather confused description. Photons, being massless, go at light speed. Any massive particle has to go slower than light, but not because it is 'diverted into time.
Close to 10^80, I believe.
Talk about the 'initial object' is probably not meaningful. Quarks exist once the strong force separates out from the others.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Why? I already looked it up[/QUOTE]
Well your all set then
Just a suggestion for further reading.