Quantum physics quotes

Ylide · « **on:** 15/11/2003 09:42:52 »

I ran across a few quotes by some famous dead people (and some not-so-famous and not-so-dead ones). Some of these are quite commonly heard, but several are new to me and possibly to you, too.

"I do not like it, and I am sorry I ever had anything to do with it."
-Erwin Schrödinger, speaking of quantum mechanics

"Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum mechanics cannot possibly have understood it."
-Niels Bohr

"God does not play dice with the cosmos."
-Albert Einstein

"Einstein, don't tell God what to do."
-Niels Bohr in response to Einstein

"I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics."
-Richard Feynman

"If that turns out to be true, I'll quit physics."
-Max Von Laue, Nobel Laureate 1914, of de Broglie's thesis on electrons having wave properties.

This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

CsManiacDan · « **Reply #1 on:** 15/03/2004 17:55:53 »

Hi everyone!

Seeing the quote by Niels Bohr to Albert Einstein made me think of a quetion i have long pondered over; do famous scientists, or indeed anyone connected with research into science have any religios convictions.

I mean for example does steven Hawking believe in god given his theories about the universe etc.

I would be curious to hear what you guys say[?]

I Love Caesium!!!

tweener · « **Reply #2 on:** 16/03/2004 18:04:52 »

I think scientists have a diverse range of beliefs just like any other diverse group of people. However, if you compare "scientists" to "christians" (or any other religion - I pick on christians) they are, on average, less pious and much more open minded. My opinion.

----
John - The Eternal Pessimist.

gsmollin · « **Reply #3 on:** 04/04/2004 06:31:36 »

I remember Abdus Salam of electroweak theory fame talking about Steven Weinberg. Apparently, Mr. Salam considered himself very religious, and did not consider Weinberg very religious at all. Even though they shared the Noble prize for their work in electroweak theory, there was clear tension over this, atleast in Salam's opinion. I suppose that is not at all remarkable, except for the circumstances surrounding thir relationship.

gsmollin · « **Reply #4 on:** 04/04/2004 06:36:51 »

I remember reading in one of Hawking's published articles, where he wrote about his audience with the Pope. The Pope had instructed him to not research the instant of the big bang, because that was the "moment of creation when the mind of God was at work". Hawking remarked that he did not mention the subject matter of his latest symposium, which was this subject, exactly.

MayoFlyFarmer · « **Reply #5 on:** 04/04/2004 22:36:44 »

I think if you look at any of the threads in this forum that deal with any religious-type issues you will find that scientists have a wide range of religous beliefs. (not much different than the spectrum of beliefs that spans the general public) there might be a slightly lower ratio of very religious people in science than other fields but I would think this only comes from the sociological stigmatizm that science and religion are mutaual exclusive or opposite in someway.

Personaly, I consider myself to be a very scientific-minded person (one of my three main focuses within my biology major in college was even evolutionary theory) AND consider myself to be a very strong-faithed christian. I have never in my life found anything in either of these two that contradicts the other.

This is a signature.... AND YOU WILL LIKE IT!!

gsmollin · « **Reply #6 on:** 04/04/2004 06:31:36 »

I remember Abdus Salam of electroweak theory fame talking about Steven Weinberg. Apparently, Mr. Salam considered himself very religious, and did not consider Weinberg very religious at all. Even though they shared the Noble prize for their work in electroweak theory, there was clear tension over this, atleast in Salam's opinion. I suppose that is not at all remarkable, except for the circumstances surrounding thir relationship.

gsmollin · « **Reply #7 on:** 04/04/2004 06:36:51 »

I remember reading in one of Hawking's published articles, where he wrote about his audience with the Pope. The Pope had instructed him to not research the instant of the big bang, because that was the "moment of creation when the mind of God was at work". Hawking remarked that he did not mention the subject matter of his latest symposium, which was this subject, exactly.

MayoFlyFarmer · « **Reply #8 on:** 04/04/2004 22:36:44 »

I think if you look at any of the threads in this forum that deal with any religious-type issues you will find that scientists have a wide range of religous beliefs. (not much different than the spectrum of beliefs that spans the general public) there might be a slightly lower ratio of very religious people in science than other fields but I would think this only comes from the sociological stigmatizm that science and religion are mutaual exclusive or opposite in someway.

Personaly, I consider myself to be a very scientific-minded person (one of my three main focuses within my biology major in college was even evolutionary theory) AND consider myself to be a very strong-faithed christian. I have never in my life found anything in either of these two that contradicts the other.

This is a signature.... AND YOU WILL LIKE IT!!

qazibasit · « **Reply #9 on:** 01/07/2004 00:01:18 »

i want to be a scientist.

OmnipotentOne · « **Reply #10 on:** 30/08/2004 21:02:05 »

quote:
Originally posted by qazibasit

i want to be a scientist.

Here here!

To see a world in a grain of sand.

danish · « **Reply #11 on:** 02/11/2004 20:39:03 »

who likes scientists

bezoar · « **Reply #12 on:** 03/11/2004 07:29:44 »

But I do find less tolerance of those who have religious beliefs toward those who don't, than vice versa.

Ylide · « **Reply #13 on:** 04/11/2004 08:32:52 »

I think this election will change that attitude. Bush won mainly because the Bible-thumpers came out in record numbers because they were terrified that "the homos" might be allowed to marry each other. Reason and logic in the choice of leader went out the door to what was determined to be the most important issue to exit-polled voters: morality. And of the moral majority that oppose the actions other people who might behave differently from them, most voted for Bush. I think this is going to drive an anti-religious sentiment among those who choose not to have imaginary friends.

Morality: the fear that someone, somewhere, might be having a good time.

This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

bezoar · « **Reply #14 on:** 04/11/2004 19:58:35 »

You know, I believe in God, or have an imaginary friend, however you want to say it. But there's room in the world for everybody, and those who don't believe are free not to. Isn't that what religious freedom is all about? But my observation is that the believers are less tolerant than the non-believers, and I'm not exactly sure why.

neilep · « **Reply #15 on:** 04/11/2004 20:15:03 »

Could it be that believers are less tolerant because, unlike non-believers they do not have the freedom to be as flexible in their attitudes, because believers have a guide/set of rules or a foundation which ,in essence ,is inflexible (ok.. maybe not entirely inflexible as eveything is open to interpretation, but mostly eh ?) and this they use as a basis for their way of life, or as their guide for making decisions in life............ whereas non believers don't.

'Men are the same as women...just inside out !'

bezoar · « **Reply #16 on:** 05/11/2004 01:42:49 »

But to my way of thinking, non-belief is also a belief system. Everyone has a set of beliefs which define for them personally what is right and wrong. And non-believers can be pretty adamant about their "non-beliefs". But the believers can get downright violent over it, and that's the part that confuses me. The believers will kill in the name of God, but the Commandments say not to kill. They pray before they go into combat -- to kill other people. I mean, what are they praying for? If they pray that our boys comes home safely, that means they'll have to kill some people on the other side. They pray before football games. Football games! What's up with that? I don't know. The whole thing doesn't make a lot of sense.

Ylide · « **Reply #17 on:** 05/11/2004 07:47:05 »

Welcome to the world of religion. It doesn't have to make sense, it's faith!

Chris Rock said it best in Kevin Smith's movie Dogma when he said that beliefs are what cause problems with mankind. You can't change a belief, even in the face of opposing evidence.

This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

neilep · « **Reply #18 on:** 05/11/2004 08:54:00 »

quote:
Originally posted by bezoar

But to my way of thinking, non-belief is also a belief system. Everyone has a set of beliefs which define for them personally what is right and wrong. And non-believers can be pretty adamant about their "non-beliefs". But the believers can get downright violent over it, and that's the part that confuses me. The believers will kill in the name of God, but the Commandments say not to kill. They pray before they go into combat -- to kill other people. I mean, what are they praying for? If they pray that our boys comes home safely, that means they'll have to kill some people on the other side. They pray before football games. Football games! What's up with that? I don't know. The whole thing doesn't make a lot of sense.

Of course you're right Nancy.....everybody is right when it comes to their own opinion on such a complicated subject.....for what it's worth I would say believers have a set of rules , a doctrine in addition to their own personal sense of right and wrong......I have also wondered why people pray before a game or take an exam or go to war....especially go to war , before they end someone elses life who probably has also prayed too.

As Jay cites.....if people believe thay are doing something in the name of a greater power then there's no stopping them......without fuelling another major debate...a belief in something that makes a person do a thing that what we would call is above and beyond ' normal ' behaviour might well be akin to a form of brain washing. It's their fundamental acceptance of their dogma that will make a person do an act of atrocity in the name of god.....ie: suicide bombers....9/11 etc..

'Men are the same as women...just inside out !'

Ylide · « **Reply #19 on:** 06/11/2004 10:49:03 »

I made that same point in another thread somewhere about religious extremism being comparable to mental illness. Glad to see you've made that connection. There is much research available about it. Google "religion +mental +illness" and you'll find a wealth if information.

This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

manoj · « **Reply #20 on:** 04/02/2005 06:03:15 »

god does not play dice with the cosmos.he plays chess

manoj

Digital Distortion · « **Reply #21 on:** 22/03/2005 23:30:53 »

Hi all...I am new to this web site..I found it through google....so science does not prove we were all created..How..Are you closing your eyes to good science and practice..Have you not read anything from Dr. Carl Baugh, or Dr. Lee Lorenzen..How about Berry Setterfield Lambert Dolphin..Hmmmm...man just appeared here..huh..I can see how you would not know who any of these people might be...as we all have the choice to choose our teachers...hmmm...choice..what an interesting word huh..All of life is about establishing relationships with other people and searching out knowledge....How is that different with our Creator..If you dont talk with someone or ignore them, its for a reason right..What about the God of the Bible..Have you ever truly sought his spirit out..Have you ever wanted a relationship with him..Who else could tell you more about the this life and the universe than him...Not a man!..God is not a man that he should lie...
"Truth is not created, it is only discovered."

Donnah · « **Reply #22 on:** 14/04/2005 04:24:31 »

quote:
Originally posted by Ylide

Welcome to the world of religion. It doesn't have to make sense, it's faith!

Chris Rock said it best in Kevin Smith's movie Dogma when he said that beliefs are what cause problems with mankind. You can't change a belief, even in the face of opposing evidence.

That is, you can't change anyone else's belief.

"Remember, if you ever need a helping hand, you will find one at the end of each of your arms." - Audrey Hepburn

kjahafa · « **Reply #23 on:** 19/04/2005 05:32:04 »

Religion is a commonality of beliefs. The knowledge we seek is found within ourselves(Book of Thomas). The sand is the same as the earth as the moon as the sun as the universe...a single entity with multiple processes. Science explains some of these processes but never their beginnings where matter ends. For those of you religious fanatics: The creator is everything and religions are of human culture.

rabeldin · « **Reply #24 on:** 27/06/2005 02:56:48 »

Unfortunately, Christianity is our most intolerant religion. You can find a number of exclusivist proof-texts if you want to. Actually, I think that the ease with which Christian sects multiply and mutate is Christianity's least attractive feature.

R A Beldin,
Improbable Statistician

ZERO POINT · « **Reply #25 on:** 20/06/2006 21:37:40 »

[xx(]

HERE'S ONE FOR YA!!

I DO NOT FEEL OBLIGED TO BELIEVE THAT THE SAME GOD WHO HAS ENDOWED US WITH SENSES, REASON AND INTELLECT HAS INTENDED US TO FORGO THEIR USE. **BY, GALILEO**

SMART MAN THAT GALILEO, I COULDN'T HAVE SAID IT BETTER MYSELF

HUH?

DocN · « **Reply #26 on:** 07/07/2006 22:10:48 »

Scientists need to speak "science" which is mathematics.
Doc

xpowderx · « **Reply #27 on:** 14/07/2006 09:15:13 »

Im still trying to comprehend the mathematical equation for inf-probabilities.. For some reason mathematics could never give me such a answer! :-D

So im guessing the "inf" is used in replacement of"I dont know "
While many of us may brainstorm on the ideas and theories that we create, it still comes down to the basic 1,0. To unlock 1,0 will be to unlock the key of life :-D

Mjhavok · « **Reply #28 on:** 03/08/2006 06:22:18 »

Richard Dawkins is an atheist and so am I.

eric l · « **Reply #29 on:** 03/08/2006 17:03:04 »

Being a scientist does not prevent one from believing in God, or Allah, or the Supreme Being, or the Creative Force or which ever name you might imagine for Him or Her. But it will problably prevent one from forcing that belief upon others !
Scietists are trained in doubting - Descartes even started his whole philosophy by that, and concluded that he could not doubt the fact that he was doubting. From that certitude he built up a complete system.
But in chemistry for example, we are aware that in a given mixture many reactions can occur at het same time (alcohol can be oxidized to acid, but also to carbon dioxide and water) and conditions will determine which reaction prevails - without completely excluding the other reactions.
A scientist who believes in God (or any of the others) will always be aware that this belief is only one of the possible answers to the "fundamental questions." Which of course is also valid for the scientist who does not believe. And within this belief or disbelief, the scientist (like everyone else) should start to build his set of rules on how to behave in this world, with or without a hereafter.

Mjhavok · « **Reply #30 on:** 07/08/2006 15:43:57 »

If you think rationally it's hard to believe in god. It demands faith and belief in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

Steven

another_someone · « **Reply #31 on:** 07/08/2006 17:28:50 »

quote:
Originally posted by Mjhavok
If you think rationally it's hard to believe in god. It demands faith and belief in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

What has belief and thought got to do with each other.

Thought, by its nature is rational; but thought can only follow from premise, which sometimes cannot be rationalised.

I am also an atheist, and do not believe in God; but I also recognise that as a human being I am more than a mere computer, I have an irrational side to me as well, a side that is a prerequisite for being human.

George

eric l · « **Reply #32 on:** 07/08/2006 18:48:31 »

The difference between science and religion or belief is very close to the difference between cause and reason.
There is definately a cause for my being around : it is something my dad and my mom did years ago. But this does answer to the question "is there a reason form my being around?".
Even to a scientist it is difficult to accept that there is no reason or no purpose in his/her being around. Religion or belief can be helpful in finding an answer to that.
Newton saw his scientific work as something to support his theology. Although I do not follow him in this, I can not see it as a contradiction either.

another_someone · « **Reply #33 on:** 07/08/2006 20:03:15 »

quote:
Originally posted by eric l
The difference between science and religion or belief is very close to the difference between cause and reason.
There is definately a cause for my being around : it is something my dad and my mom did years ago. But this does answer to the question "is there a reason form my being around?".
Even to a scientist it is difficult to accept that there is no reason or no purpose in his/her being around. Religion or belief can be helpful in finding an answer to that.
Newton saw his scientific work as something to support his theology. Although I do not follow him in this, I can not see it as a contradiction either.

There are many questions that religion seeks to answer that science cannot ( Religion asks questions both regarding 'why' as well as 'who', while science concentrates on 'how'.), but rational logic will make it obvious that the fact that you can formulate a question does not automatically mean that an answer exists for that question.

I could ask “what is the last decimal digit in the square root of 2?” - the question can be asked, but since the square root of two is an irrational number, it has no last digit, and so the question cannot be answered. This inability to answer the question is not a constraint of human intellect, but a limitation upon the domain of the question. It is akin to the problem of trying to create a set of all things that do not belong to a set.

I do agree that historically most pre-modern (as well as some modern) scientists were very religious, or at least superstitious (and often both). There is nothing in religion that precludes good science (excepting a few extremists who insist that if the answer science comes up with violates their own narrow ideas of religion, then science must be wrong – but most scientists can separate the domains of religion and science sufficiently that this does not become a problem).

George

Mjhavok · « **Reply #34 on:** 09/08/2006 08:59:29 »

quote:
Originally posted by another_someone

quote:
Originally posted by Mjhavok
If you think rationally it's hard to believe in god. It demands faith and belief in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

What has belief and thought got to do with each other.

Thought, by its nature is rational; but thought can only follow from premise, which sometimes cannot be rationalised.

I am also an atheist, and do not believe in God; but I also recognise that as a human being I am more than a mere computer, I have an irrational side to me as well, a side that is a prerequisite for being human.

George

You can have an irrational thought easily. In my opinion a thought isn't inherently rational just because it's a thought. People do irrational things all the time although at the time they may have thought it was rational.

I do believe that rational thinking and believing in god are difficult to merge but some people do it. They are totally rational in their job but believe in god. It's like they have a seperate part of their brain that rationality can't enter.

Also can I just state that I didn't mean you have to be an android not to believe in god. I just mean if you think about the existence of god in a rational manner it doesn't hold up.

Emotions do make us human but they don't have to make us believe in anything without proof just because it makes us feel good.

I am a bit pasionate about this subject as I believe it causes alot of harm in the world.

Steven

Mjhavok · « **Reply #35 on:** 09/08/2006 09:01:57 »

quote:
Originally posted by another_someone

quote:
Originally posted by eric l
The difference between science and religion or belief is very close to the difference between cause and reason.
There is definately a cause for my being around : it is something my dad and my mom did years ago. But this does answer to the question "is there a reason form my being around?".
Even to a scientist it is difficult to accept that there is no reason or no purpose in his/her being around. Religion or belief can be helpful in finding an answer to that.
Newton saw his scientific work as something to support his theology. Although I do not follow him in this, I can not see it as a contradiction either.

There are many questions that religion seeks to answer that science cannot ( Religion asks questions both regarding 'why' as well as 'who', while science concentrates on 'how'.), but rational logic will make it obvious that the fact that you can formulate a question does not automatically mean that an answer exists for that question.

I could ask “what is the last decimal digit in the square root of 2?” - the question can be asked, but since the square root of two is an irrational number, it has no last digit, and so the question cannot be answered. This inability to answer the question is not a constraint of human intellect, but a limitation upon the domain of the question. It is akin to the problem of trying to create a set of all things that do not belong to a set.

I do agree that historically most pre-modern (as well as some modern) scientists were very religious, or at least superstitious (and often both). There is nothing in religion that precludes good science (excepting a few extremists who insist that if the answer science comes up with violates their own narrow ideas of religion, then science must be wrong – but most scientists can separate the domains of religion and science sufficiently that this does not become a problem).

George

I totally agree with this

Steven

jolly · « **Reply #36 on:** 14/05/2007 01:45:39 »

The majority of past scientist believed in God! I'm talking pre-Darwin! But even Darwin himself was a priest!

Decartes and Hume, both believed in God!

Newton certainly believed in god!

Einstien, frued, and Marx were all Jewish! and I think to a degree all believed in God your first post about Einstien shows he did! and Marx really attacked bad religion- not god!

But I think you'll find historically the majority of scientists, and thinkers believed in god!

jolly · « **Reply #37 on:** 14/05/2007 15:18:54 »

sorry quotes:

Hume:

"whatever exists must have a cause or reason of its existence, it being absolutely impossible for anything to produce itself or be the cause of its own existence.

In mounting up, therefore, from effects to causes, we must either go on in tracing an infinite succession, without any ultimate cause at all, or must at last have recourse to some ultimate cause, that is necessarily exsistent:

Now, that the first supposition is absurd, may thus be proved. In the infinite chain or succession of causes and effects, each single effect is determined to exsist by the power and efficacy of that cause which immediately preceded; but the whole eternal chain or succession, taken togther, is not determined or caused by anything:

And yet it is evident that it requires a cause or reason, as much as any particular object which begins to exsist in time.
The question is still reasonable why this particular succession of causes exsisted from eternity, and not any other succession, or no succession at all?

If there be no necessarily exsistent being, any supposition which can be formed is equally possible; nor is there any more absurdity in nothing's having existed from eternity, than there is in that succession of causes which constitutes the universe.

What was it, then, which determined something to exist rather than nothing, and bestowed being on a particular possibility, exclusive of the rest? External causes, there are supposed to be none.
Chance is a word without meaning. WAS IT NOTHING? but that can never produce any thing. We must, therefore, have recourse to a necessarily existent Being, who carries the reason of his existence in himself; and who cannot be supposed not to exist, without an express contradiction.

There is, consequently, such a Being-that is, there is a Deity"(A GOD).

Well you wanted a quote- bit long but relates!!!!

Bored chemist · « **Reply #38 on:** 14/05/2007 19:00:42 »

As far as I can see the big bang is cited as an exception to
"it being absolutely impossible for anything to produce itself or be the cause of its own existence. "
It did cause itself, or at least there is no way of knowing what caused it.
At that point you can always accept that the big bang is just as much an article of faith as the existence of God. Personally, I think that a random impersonal explosion of existence is intrinsicly more plauseible than a complicated God with, for example, a form to create people in the image of.

jolly · « **Reply #39 on:** 22/05/2007 11:25:53 »

Well thats very nice for you Bored; who you arguing against me or hume?

@@ · « **Reply #40 on:** 27/05/2007 22:16:05 »

" watch him he will have some buggers eye out!" King Harold [

]

JimBob · « **Reply #41 on:** 28/05/2007 21:10:09 »

"The Universe never did make sense; I suspect it was built on government contract."

Robert A. Heinlein - The Number of the Beast

jolly · « **Reply #42 on:** 29/06/2007 22:06:51 »

Einstein: "things should be made as simple as possible, but no more, simple". Somthing like that.

Paralyzer · « **Reply #43 on:** 21/08/2007 06:04:26 »

Don't forget Copernicus, the father of modern astronomy, was also a priest.

eric l · « **Reply #44 on:** 21/08/2007 09:55:49 »

Quote from: Paralyzer on 21/08/2007 06:04:26

Don't forget Copernicus, the father of modern astronomy, was also a priest.

Joining the clergy was - in those days - the only way for most people to have access to learning.

Paralyzer · « **Reply #45 on:** 21/08/2007 16:18:14 »

Unfortunately. Luckily, we have a bit of a separation today.

DoctorBeaver · « **Reply #46 on:** 21/08/2007 18:45:42 »

This is particle physics rather than QM but I like it.

I I Rabi, when it was realised that the muon is a heavier version of the electron, asked "Who ordered that?"

How do we know that the "laws" of physics are really laws, i.e. true everywhere? Started by rainwildmanBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology	Replies: 32 Views: 14599	27/04/2008 11:14:42 by bitistoll
How can Newtonian mechanics and quantum mechanics coexist? Started by annie123Board Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology	Replies: 41 Views: 17644	28/02/2012 04:23:44 by greeniemax
Will quantum security change online security? Started by thedocBoard Geek Speak	Replies: 10 Views: 4369	07/02/2013 22:13:01 by Jarek Duda
Could tidal locking and quantum locking be linked? Started by jeffreyHBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology	Replies: 0 Views: 979	23/02/2014 03:49:50 by jeffreyH
Is "c" the speed limit for quantum particles? Started by Bill SBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology	Replies: 6 Views: 2740	22/01/2014 19:56:09 by JP

Quantum physics quotes

Ylide (OP)

Ylide (OP)

Ylide (OP)

Ylide (OP)

another_someone

another_someone

jolly

jolly

jolly

jolly

Similar topics (5)