ramanan50

Posts Tagged ‘Albert Einstein’

Bells Theorem Hinduism Quantum Mechanics

In Astrophysics, Hinduism on April 25, 2014 at 09:57

 

Hinduism states that things are not what they seem.

 

Advaita interpretation of the Vedas say that what you see or perceive is because of your ignorance of Reality.

 

The Reality is One and you are not different from it.

 

You are conditioned by ignorance and your limitations which includes Space and Time , where as the Reality is beyond both of the

 

Vaisheshika Theory of Atoms  says it differently.

 

Atoms are configured in various permutations and combinations to present a view of different objects, that is the objects are differ because of the

 

different structure of the Atoms constituting objects.

 

Let us look this from practical Life.

 

What you perceive is dependent on where you are , what you are and what your mental attitude is.

 

For the same set of Object, each of us have a different perception.

 

And the Attributes through which we recognize them  are, when they are broken down mean nothing.

 

For example, the Attributes of a Rose.

 

A rose is known by its smell, color,climates in which they are grown are some of the Attributes we have for a Rose.

 

If you analyze these Attributes, you shall find they lead to nothing as such to recognize Rose as a Rose.

 

The Rose we recognize is some thing more than the Attributes we ascribe.

 

Even with out these Attributes we recognize a Rose.

 

For more on this, please read my Posts on Perception, Do we see what we really see.

 

Another example.

 

We are familiar with Ultra Slow Motion cameras used in Cricket Matches.

 

Umpires use this to determine to take decisions on the field.

 

What is seen cleanly as ‘out’  is ‘not out’, when you refer these slow motion replays.

 

Which fact that is presented is correct?

 

Both are correct .

 

It depends on the conditions and the perspective.

 

This is what Hinduism has said about Five Thousand years ago.

 

Quantum Theory is now nearing it, n , but not quite.

 

Bells Theorem  proves that Quantum Mechanics can not explain all the events by their theory alone.

 

Exactly what the Vedas say.

 

I am providing some Links and excerpts to refer.

 

Hinduism and Bell's Theory.

Static Universe bell’s Theory

 

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

 

 There are variants of the Theorem with different meanings of “Local Realistic.” In John S. Bell‘s pioneering paper of 1964 the realism consisted in postulating in addition to the quantum state a “complete state”, which determines the results of measurements on the system, either by assigning a value to the measured quantity that is revealed by the measurement regardless of the details of the measurement procedure, or by enabling the system to elicit a definite response whenever it is measured, but a response which may depend on the macroscopic features of the experimental arrangement or even on the complete state of the system together with that arrangement. Locality is a condition on composite systems with spatially separated constituents, requiring an operator which is the product of operators associated with the individual constituents to be assigned a value which is the product of the values assigned to the factors, and requiring the value assigned to an operator associated with an individual constituent to be independent of what is measured on any other constituent. From his assumptions Bell proved an inequality (the prototype of “Bell’s Inequality”) which is violated by the Quantum Mechanical predictions made from an entangled state of the composite system. In other variants the complete state assigns probabilities to the possible results of measurements of the operators rather than determining which result will be obtained, and nevertheless inequalities are derivable; and still other variants dispense with inequalities. The incompatibility of Local Realistic Theories with Quantum Mechanics permits adjudication by experiments, some of which are described here. Most of the dozens of experiments performed so far have favored Quantum Mechanics, but not decisively because of the “detection loophole” or the “communication loophole.”

 

Let me put it from a common example.

 

All of us take decisions based on Available Data.

 

We do not have all the choices to enable us to decide on an issue.

 

We take decisions based on the Data, Information that is made available to us and we decide.

 

This means the decisions we make are made on the basis of information available or made to be available to us and not All the Information.

 

Hence our decisions, based on Choices are not fully correct as they have been preset with the limitations of the Choices being made available to us.

 

Please read my post on Choice.

 

“If the statistical predictions of quantum theory are true, an objective universe is incompatible with the law of local causes.”

Although formidable at first glance, Bell’s Theorem seems simpler once key terms are understood.

First, an “objective universe” is simply one that exists apart from our consciousness.

In 1935, Albert Einstein, together with Nathan Rosen and Boris Podolsky proposed through flawless mathematical reasoning that if the quantum theory were correct, then ‘A change in the spin of one particle in a two particle system would affect its twin simultaneously, even if the two had been widely separated in the meantime’. And ‘simultaneous’ is a dirty word in the theory of special relativity, which forbids the transmission of any signal faster than the speed of light. Obviously, a signal telling the particle ‘what to do’ would have to travel faster than the speed of light if instantaneous changes were to occur between the two particles.

The dilemma into which Einstein, Rosen and Podolsky dragged the quantum theory was a profound one, coming to be known as The ERP Effect.

In 1964 Bell’s Theorem emerged as a proof that Einstein’s impossible proposition did in fact hold true: instantaneous changes in widely separated systems did occur.

In 1972, Clauser confirmed the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics, working with an elaborate system involving photons, calcite crystals, and photo multiplier tubes The experiment has since been run several times with the same consistent results; Bell’s Theorem stands solid.

The implications of Bell’s theorem
are practically unthinkable

Even for the physicists involved, the implications of Bell’s Theorem are practically unthinkable. Mathematics and experimentation have taken us where our logical mind cannot go. Imagine, two particles once in contact, separated even to the ends of the universe, change instantaneously when a change in one of them occurs!

Slowly, new ideas are emerging to explain these unthinkable occurrences. One view is that, in some unexplainable way, the separated particles are still in contact although separated in space. This is the suggestion of the French physicist Bernard D’Espagnat. In 1979, writing about quantum reality, he said that “the entire notion of an external, fixed, objective world now lies in conflict not only with quantum theory, but in facts drawn from actual experiments…. in some sense all these objects constitute an indivisible whole.”

Physicist Jack Sarfatti of the Physics/Consciousness Research Group proposes that no actual energy-requiring signal is transmitted between the distant objects, but ‘information’ is transmitted instead. Thus no violation of Einstein’s special theory of relativity occurs. Exactly what this information is is unclear, and it is a strange thing which might travel instantly and require no energy to do so.

Nic Herbert, a physicist who heads the C-Life Institute, suggests that we have merely discovered an elemental oneness of the world. This oneness cannot be diminished by spatial separation. An invisible wholeness unites the objects that are given birth in the universe, and it is this wholeness that we have stumbled into through modern experimental methods. Herbert alludes to the words of the poet Charles Williams: “Separation without separateness, reality without rift.”

 

 

 

 

Citation.

 

Bell’s Theorem Stanford

 

 

Hinduism and Bell’s Theory

 

Bell’s Theorem   Wiki

 

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Vintage History Photo Essay

In History, images on January 31, 2014 at 20:10

I have come across a site where I found some interesting photos.

These  are photos from history are quite captivating.

Einstein's Desk

Einstein‘s Desk the day after his death April 18,1955

Map 1689

World Map 1689

 

Ground above where Hitler was burnt

The Ground below which Hitler was burnt in the Bunker 67 years ago

 

Teenager who Flew Cessna

A teenager flew a Cessna into Red Square illegally 1987, he was arrested

 

Helmets

Helmets of the World War of different Nations

 

Death in World war

World War Deaths Note India‘s

Forecast 1962

Forecast of 2012 New York in 1962

Source.

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/1gCBWy/:XeZdWyMF:9Y9No73m/www.slightlywarped.com/crapfactory/curiosities/2013/january/another_side_of_history.htm/

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Universe Illusion A Hologram Physicists Meet Adi Sankara

In Astrophysics, Hinduism on December 12, 2013 at 09:37

Brahma satyam jagat mithya, jivo brahmaiva naparah—”Brahman is the only truth, the world is unreal, and there is ultimately no difference between Brahman and individual self’-Adi Sankara in Viveka Chudamani

Declared Adi Sankara, the greatest exponent of non Dualism or Advaita,

Knowledge is relative,There are two kinds of Knowledge.

One is Para Vidya which id Eternal and another is Apara Vidya, that is transitory, that is of this temporal world.

From the Absolute stand point the knowledge we have here in this world, including Science et al is only Real till Real Knowledge dawns.

Then it becomes Illusory.

So the word is real and Unreal or Illusion , both at the same time.

Hinduism speaks of fourteen levels of existence.

Eleven have been proved theoretically by Quantum Physics.

Please read my post filed under Indian Philosophy, Hinduism, Time and Astrophysics Physics.

Scroll down for Videos.

Now Physicists have come with the same conclusion from a different angle.

‘Ekam Sath, Vipra Bahuta Vidanti’ Truth is One , People speak of It in many ways’

A team of physicists has provided some of the clearest evidence yet that our Universe could be just one big projection.

In 1997, theoretical physicist Juan Maldacena proposed that an audacious model of the Universe in which gravity arises from infinitesimally thin, vibrating strings could be reinterpreted in terms of well-established physics. The mathematically intricate world of strings, which exist in nine dimensions of space plus one of time, would be merely a hologram: the real action would play out in a simpler, flatter cosmos where there is no gravity.

Maldacena’s idea thrilled physicists because it offered a way to put the popular but still unproven theory of strings on solid footing — and because it solved apparent inconsistencies between quantum physics and Einstein’s theory of gravity. It provided physicists with a mathematical Rosetta stone, a ‘duality’, that allowed them to translate back and forth between the two languages, and solve problems in one model that seemed intractable in the other and vice versa. But although the validity of Maldacena’s ideas has pretty much been taken for granted ever since, a rigorous proof has been elusive.

In two papers posted on the arXiv repository, Yoshifumi Hyakutake of Ibaraki University in Japan and his colleagues now provide, if not an actual proof, at least compelling evidence that Maldacena’s conjecture is true.

In one paper, Hyakutake computes the internal energy of a black hole, the position of its event horizon (the boundary between the black hole and the rest of the Universe), its entropy and other properties based on the predictions of string theory as well as the effects of so-called virtual particles that continuously pop into and out of existence. In the other, he and his collaborators calculate the internal energy of the corresponding lower-dimensional cosmos with no gravity. The two computer calculations match.

“It seems to be a correct computation,” says Maldacena, who is now at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey and who did not contribute to the team’s work.”

 

Source:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/11/universe-hologram-physicists_n_4428359.html

Read another article at the Link below.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/09/is-our-universe-a-hologram-in-1982-a-litttle-known-but-epic-event-occured-at-the-university-of-paris.html

 

Top Mistakes Uncertainty Thy Name Is Science

In Science on September 26, 2013 at 09:39

Science, the protagonists often claim , is the authority on everything and what it says is the truth .

if so, why there has been so many revisions and in many a case total negation and repudiation of what has been theorized earlier.

The operative word is ‘theory’.

Science, in my view, is just that, nothing more.

List of mistakes by Science/Scientists(even this likely to change as what is said to incorrect may be called as correct later).

Climate Errors by Science.

Climate Errors by Science.Leaked report reveals the world has warmed at quarter the rate claimed by IPCC in 2007 Scientists accept their computers may have exaggerated Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Worlds-climate-scientists-confess-Global-warming-just-QUARTER-thought–computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html#ixzz2fy5zRXlQ Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Seth Borenstein, the Associated Press‘s science correspondent, has given us a fine barometer by which to measure the scientific certainty that humans are heating the planet. He reports that the world’s climatologists are now gearing up to officially proclaim that they are 95 percent certain that humans are to blame for global warming.

That 5 percent gap may seem large. It is not. In science, nothing is 100 percent sure—not even the law of gravity.

According to Borenstein, here are a few things that scientists are just as or less certain of than climate change:

  • that cigarettes kill
  • the age of the universe
  • that vitamins make you healthy
  • that dioxin in Superfund sites is dangerous

Here are a couple I’ll add myself. Scientists are more certain that humans are causing climate change than:

 

The Periodic Table, The Bible of Chemistry.

We like to think of the periodic table as immutable. It isn’t – atoms don’t always weigh the same, says Celeste Biever.

No such thing as Reptiles.

The traditional group Reptilia things like lizards, crocodiles, snakes, tortoises plus many extinct groups – is not a true clade, says Graham Lawton.

Nuclear Fission Confusion.

We’ve built the bomb. We’ve built reactors. But the whole enterprise of nuclear fission is based on a misunderstanding.

Chemistry a confusion.

Chemistry is a much fuzzier business than we thought.

Gene is not a Gene.

What defines life’s building blocks? It depends who you ask, says Michael Le Page.

Ecology.

Ask a taxonomist to estimate Earth’s total inventory of species, and they’ll probably say 30 million. That is almost certainly a huge overestimate, saysKate Douglas.

Magnetism.

Whatever undergraduate physicists are told, magnetic poles do indeed enjoy the single life, says Richard Webb.

Einstein.

Albert Einstein’s towering reputation is only enhanced by his self-styled biggest blunder. It might not have been a mistake after all, says Richard Webb.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/special/rewriting-the-textbooks

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/things-scientists-are-less-sure-of-than-climate-change

The Religious Are Less Intelligent, Really?

In Religion, Science on August 14, 2013 at 10:18

I received a Link from my son-in-law a Link from the Independent that those who are religious are less intelligent, marked specially for me.

Scientists who believe in God.

Nobel Laureates who believe in God.

My son contributed to this by declaring ,’Blog Expected”

Yes.

Here it is.

Einstein Quote On Religion and Science.

Einstein Quote On Religion and Science.

Let Science define what Intelligence is first.

It might also of  interest to know what the basis is for  Axioms ,.

Those are assumptions of Science that can not be questioned.

They give it a fancy name for it,

‘Self Evident’

If science is perfect and the end of all, why so frequently it changes its Theories?

So far as information goes, the Scientists have been rushing in ships, planes the moment a Solar eclipse is announced, with a pompous statement  that the investigation would solve many mysteries of the Sun and enhance our knowledge of the Sun.

Yet the information about the Sun is the same as it was .when I was in High School, in the early sixties.

The Suns is a Star.

It is hot.

Its core is hotter.

It erupts periodically emitting Solar Flares.

The Sun exerts its Gravity to keep earth in i s orbit.

The Sun will die in about a Million years.

That’s all.

Now the people who laid the foundation of science are fools, less intelligent.

The following idiots were Religious.

Those who know Science and Philosophy are aware that most Philosophers and Scientists were Religious and believers in God.

Example, Rene Descartes,the Founder of Calculus and Trigonometry.

Spinoza, the man who gave Spinoza’s Theorem.

Leibniz of Leibniz Theorem,

Emmanuel Kant,Giant in Mathematics and Philosophy.

Albert Einstein, Theory of Relativity,

Thomas Babington Macaulay, the man who is reported to have recorded a Highest IQ.

Creative Giants like Shakespeare, Milton,William Wordsworth,

Great Military strategists Alexander the Great,Napoleon Bonaparte.

I am deliberately omitting fools like Sri Adi Shankaracharya,Varahamihira, Arya Bhatta,Charaka,Vararuchi, Susrutha,Kalidasa,Patanjali …….

It is easy for a fool to deny.

It requires wisdom to prove.

It is easier to deny facts by saying I have not seen it.

But  one believes in a great Grand Father whom one has not seen.

They have not defined what Religion is in this Study. but they define Religiosity.

Seems that they have taken Christianity as the basis.

And what are  the representative sample of Culture,Ethnicity parameters  that have been taken into account?

Einstein On God.

Einstein On God.

A piece of University of Rochester analysis, led by Professor Miron Zuckerman, found “a reliable negative relation between intelligence and religiosity” in 53 out of 63 studies.

According to the study entitled, ‘The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations’, published in the ‘Personality and Social Psychology Review‘, even during early years the more intelligent a child is the more likely it would be to turn away from religion.

In old age above average intelligence people are less likely to believe, the researchers also found.

One of the studies used in Zuckerman’s paper was a life-long analysis of the beliefs of 1,500 gifted children with with IQs over 135.

The study began in 1921 and continues today. Even in extreme old age the subjects had much lower levels of religious belief than the average population.

The review, which is the first systematic meta-analysis of the 63 studies conducted in between 1928 and 2012, showed that of the 63 studies, 53 showed a negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity, while 10 showed a positive one.

Only two studies showed significant positive correlations and significant negative correlations were seen in a total of 35 studies.

Religiosity is defined by the psychologists as involvement in some (or all) facets of religion.

Source:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists-according-to-analysis-of-scores-of-scientific-studies-stretching-back-over-decades-8758046.html

List of Scientists who believed in God.

  1. Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
    Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution – and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.
  2. Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
    Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, “It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity.” (Of Atheism)
  3. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
    Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity – well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!
  4. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
    Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo’s telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one “proof” based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope’s favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo’s) was very offended. After the “trial” and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.
  5. Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
    Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted – suggesting the famous “I think therefore I am”. Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God – for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences – can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.
  6. Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
    Pascal was a French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and theologian. In mathematics, he published a treatise on the subject of projective geometry and established the foundation for probability theory. Pascal invented a mechanical calculator, and established the principles of vacuums and the pressure of air. He was raised a Roman Catholic, but in 1654 had a religious vision of God, which turned the direction of his study from science to theology. Pascal began publishing a theological work,Lettres provinciales, in 1656. His most influential theological work, the Pensées (“Thoughts”), was a defense of Christianity, which was published after his death. The most famous concept from Pensées was Pascal’s Wager. Pascal’s last words were, “May God never abandon me.”
  7. Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
    In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God’s plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God was essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, “The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”
  8. Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
    One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to “Boyle’s Law” for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: “By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, ‘for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels…’ As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty.” Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.
  9. Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
    Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.
  10. Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
    Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called “Mendelianism”. He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and “rediscovered” him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860’s was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of “conflict” between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics – selective breeding among humans to “improve” the stock). He was writing how the “priestly mind” was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton’s contribution.
  11. William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
    Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says “Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions.” Lord Kelvin was anOld Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth’s age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).
  12. Max Planck (1858-1947)
    Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture “Religion and Naturwissenschaft,” Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that “the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols.” Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a “tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition” with the goal “toward God!”

Scientists who were Atheists.

  • Ernst Abbe (1840–1905): German physicist, optometrist, entrepreneur, and social reformer. Together with Otto Schott and Carl Zeiss, he laid the foundation of modernoptics. Abbe developed numerous optical instruments. He was a co-owner of Carl Zeiss AG, a German manufacturer of research microscopes, astronomical telescopes, planetariums and other optical systems.[1]
  • Zhores Alferov (1930–): Soviet and Russian physicist and academic who contributed significantly to the creation of modern heterostructure physics and electronics. He is an inventor of the heterotransistor and the winner of 2000 Nobel Prize in Physics.[2][3]
  • Hannes Alfvén (1908–1995): Swedish electrical engineer and plasma physicist. He received the 1970 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on magnetohydrodynamics(MHD). He is best known for describing the class of MHD waves now known as Alfvén waves.[4][5][6]
  • Jim Al-Khalili (1962–): Iraqi-born British theoretical physicist, author and science communicator. He is professor of Theoretical Physics and Chair in the Public Engagement in Science at the University of Surrey.[7]
  • I leave it to the readers to compare the the Scientists and those who believed in God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists-according-to-analysis-of-scores-of-scientific-studies-stretching-back-over-decades-8758046.html

Thanks Vikram,Anand.

* I have received quite a few comments, most of them to my email personally.

In general, people seem to agree.

Probably they feel it is embarrassing to them to state this in Public,as this, I feel unnecessarily.

Those who disagree, in email and in the comments, do not address the points I have raised in the post.

One comment says that

Science is a process, not a body of knowledge. Theories change because scientists continue to learn more about nature. Religion is the opposite of science. Religion does not require evidence.

Of course, many scientists believe in God. That does not prove that God exists; it just means that scientists are human and look to faith when they reach the limits of their knowledge.”

I am replying this in the Post rather than in the Comments to enable readers to respond to the thought.

That ‘Science is not a body of Knowledge’ is new to me.

Precisely what I am driving at.

Science is an attempt to understand with a system.

Philosophy is called the Mother of all Sciences as it examines the fundamentals of Science.

Religion is  not the opposite of Science.

It supplements Science,especially Indian Philosophy.

Religion provides Proof.

We do not follow the methodology while we do it for Science.

Religion is the understanding of the self and the Universe with what one possesses ,which Science does not attempt to examine.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,921 other followers

%d bloggers like this: