Aethelwulf

lol It would be time to quit.

I think that is fairer.

There is such a thing a Canonical Quantization, a First Quantization and a Second Quantization method. My approach would have been a type of Canonical Quantization where we introduce the use of h-bar (a purely quantum mechanical) entity and their respective operators for the replacement of classical variables.

I still look at it though as the lowest energy state for any quantum oscillator.

It is the appearance of geometry in a vacuum http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/geometrogenesis

That's because at the time I was unsure exactly what you where asking. So you don't (it seems you are saying) have the attention span to actually sit and explain yourself? Nice one. Please don't get me started with this again. Ecoli was hinting that either I was incomprehensible or that English was not my native tongue. He also said I seemed to be muddled up physics wise. I am not getting into this again, read his posts. Oh, and in my case it certainly felt personal. Right down to a long list of each of my posts being negatively repped. I don't know if it was just the nature of the thread, but I know my posts where hardly the trash it was made out to be.. and being negatively repped isn't even my problem. As I have explained, this kind of system acts more as punishment and reflects on the person enough that someone first coming here will think to themselves.. ''oh, don't read his posts or listen to him.'' Its morally wrong having such a system.

Well I figure, to have an ordered set of events you need to be able to speak about time. In the beginning, there was no kind of time we can deal with in a relativistic sense. We are traditionally told, that everything diverged from a ''single point'' without dimensions. If this is the case, then the kind of time we often think about, the conventional space-time doesn't really hold. So whilst we may speak of ''first instances'' there was no kind of geometry to actually speak about time. Geometry only appears a little later when the universe has cooled down sufficiently to allow geometrogenesis. Which is actually a topic I believe Wheeler introduced, you may have heard of it?

No no, I don't take offense when asked to back up a claim. That I am happy doing. One of the most recent things which has got up my nose is saying ''I can see English is not your first language''. Why? What am I doing... am I speaking in chinese or something?

Have you even took the time to see the quality of my posts? A lot of them take a great deal of time as well due to latexing. Well plenty of people where being condescending in that thread. You may need to be specific. The reputation system in general. I wouldn't care at all if I didn't think it would influence the veiws of others. ---Sorry swansont, didn't realize about the post.

When did I say ''an inch'' of science. If i did, I apologize upfront now, but I don't find this second case insulting. Ecoli was extremely condescending in the previous and following posts. Stating things like ''your physics knowledge seems a bit muddled,'' yet hyprocritical since I hadn't seen him contributing here in the physics subforum once since my arrival. I really don't see how my posts deserved to be harshly criticized in such a way. As I said, being liked doesn't bother me... you could hate me and it wouldn't phase me. But knowing that your reputation can impact how people view your posts is actually frustrating.

It's a limit for any energy and may very well apply to a photon - in fact, Einstein's original work on a zero point energy involved quantum oscillators - these include all particles of energy belonging to the electromagnetic field, fermion fields, gauge fields ect

Then it clearly is being abused. Not once have I sat down and created a thread frivolously, or went out my way to deceive in a post or even... in my own eyes, created a thread and answered anything with stupid thoughts or questions. What does seem clear, is that this ''reputation'' is a kind of slander without words on a person and will be abused by people who generally don't like you. I have never been really insulting either... if anything I have been insulted. I certainly don't think it is rare that someone would distribute negative reputation points to punish someone. My most recent thread is a prime example, of posts being disliked because ''it is not within their mentality or standards''. And I don't think for one moment the several odd negative reputation points was from many people. I think one person has just found each and every post and zapped them regardless.

I didn't evade that question, I simply forgot about it. In reply to this question, simply read this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism - I cannot word it any better. And I can't answer questions like ''how do you test God''? This is not the nature of the OP to tackle that question. Especially of course for the fact that I can't. If God is nature itself, then how can one test a nature of nature? Just look around you in this world, you ask yourself whether God can be tested. It's like asking a fish to describe land.

tested? Perhaps your observational skills are lacking somewhat, because no one has asked me to provide evidence to how ''God'' can be tested. If they had, I would have laughed in this thread and said if I knew that, I would be a nobel prize winner. The question, indeed was, what are the statistics of a God to exist. I have answered him, three times now, that I cannot provide a statistic for God. Such a thing if it is possible would require a complete knowledge of the universes statistics involving such a being. I don't have that knowledge. What more do you want from me than the response you people are so insidiously trying to make out I have intentionally avoided? Your actions here as a mod are somewhat lacking. I haven't avoided anyone, I certainly have replied to every question and I certainly am not advocating anything more than within my own capabilities. All I have stated in the OP, is that if a God exists, quantum mechanics places considerable limits on what his own existence might include. Close the thread if you are so hungry for a power trip. [[if I had said, without any doubt he exists, and was outside of physics, I think you would have had more problems with this thread. So far, I have seen nothing wrong in my actions.]]

I am glad to help. If you have any [questions] on physics, don't hesitate to come into the physics subforum and ask them. A question is never stupid.

I mean, let's think about it for a second. We have people here who have dedicated their time to help people in their times of trouble. People like... pmb who is very capable of talking about scientfic ''things'' and helping people. No doubt he has dedicated a lot of time to answer people but you take one look on his personal profile and you see he has a negative reputation. Any outsider would look at that and think he is... unreliable, contrary to him being a physicist. Not that it bothers me being ''liked'' here, but it has come to my attention posts I have made could be easily ignored because of this system as well, since recently I have went down quite a few reputation points since me making a thread on the possibilities of a God. Again, I don't care about reputation points, I do care however if this is going to have a substantial impact on people actually listening to what I have to say. Favoritism is a horrible way to induce the reliability of a person. Why should a reputation precede you on the quality of whether someone agree's with you? It's a fact of life that you will always experience someone who does not agree with what you say, whether partially or in the whole. But this shouldn't weigh up whether you are capable of even talking about subjects. This reputation system here is disheartening for anyone. It's not only childish, perhaps even morally wrong, but it is systematically flawed as it tries to the summarize the character of an individual.

If I admit I can't, which I have now about three times, how can you honestly flag this thread? You are persecuting me for not being able to adhere to your request. If any moderator takes this flag seriously, I will take it as a biased decision based on you being a mod. How about those statistics?

My grasp of physics seems muddled? LOL! Come back to me when you are ready to debate this without the silly insults. I have years of understanding physics. I say the things I say because I have studied these things for a long while. Perhaps as a better come-back, you could actually challenge the physics and show what you know. Personally, also I don't understand how anyone can flag this post because I am incapable of giving a statistic to God. I am very confused by such an attitude. I'd be even more confused if any action is brought upon it.

Yes and no. First of all, making a statistic on whether a God exists is unwise. I will get back to this in a moment. You seem to be saying that factor 1) is that it is what you and others have said because it is an improbable possibility that we can observe through physics. This is a wrong statement. The very first instant of the universe, and following, cannot be directly measured by any being on Earth. No one can and will be able to measure this moment because nothing will let us live within that era. I will leave you to answer within yourself why. Factor 1) actually adds to the realization a God can exist. The improbability of a universe coming from nothing, or out of an infinite amount of states it could have arose from, adds to the conjecture arguably that a something intelligent was behind its creation. You can't argue one way or another whether this ''improbability'' adds or takes away the argument for a God. Factor 2) is the same. If you have a really high potential, (the kind of potential like [math]\frac{m}{2}\phi[/math]) and is dictated to be high for a universe to appear to be arguably again, in the favor of a design - that something was capable of making this potential be real and physical. Making a statistic on God is useless. And enough of the ad hominem insults about whether English is my first language. I am English.

(And whoever keeps making negatives to my posts, grow up.) These ''counting systems'' for the quality of posts are childish. It just shows you can't have a reasonable discussion without showing stupid emotions over something. I'd understand it if I have said something amazingly thick. A safe estimate, would possibly be, what is the statistical chance of single universe coming into existence. Now, one can argue a number of different ''routes'' to this question. One can argue that the universe is highly improbable - that the appearance of a single universe required just the right conditions that it was 1 in an infinite amount of conditions it could have arose in. These are amazingly fantastic odds, but true if one takes into consideration the laws of quantum mechanics. However, one could argue that the universe was highly probable due to a very high potential which occurred around the same time our universe came into existence. ...so my conclusion is, if one was going to make a statistic on God, one cannot be definite one way or another. It's hard to base a statistic on something where odds like even a single universe is obscured by chances which... are either based on the first account or the latter. But it certainly does not make them, improbable. ''same time'' sorry. edited.

Well, let us base some statistics on the probability let us say, on the chance of a simplest enzyme required for life. The probability, which was first calculated by Hoyle came to about 1 in [math]10^{40,000}[/math]. If this kind of life really is by chance, the question truly is, what are the odds there is no intelligent hand behind ''the world''? Well I don't get to see the woman often, so next time you see her, can you please ask her for me whether she even wears one

Am certain that the universe is ruled by uncertainty. Just knowing the location and trajectory of a particle would involve great amounts of energy. It would cause an inherent instability of the vacuum. In science, we can be sure to some great degree of the things we can measure and test. To be honest, what you have said only adds to the evidence that we cannot be sure a God does not exist. What are you on about? I am quite aware of the methods of science, which is why I am disappointed in you and others being so dogmatic in your ways enough to say God is ''improbable''. Why should God be measurable? God is in the leagues of parallel universes. We may never be able to measure them directly but we still theorize on their possibilities and we hardly say things like ''they are improbable.'' I think most of you need classes again in the world of science where keeping an open mind is invaluable. And my claim about the bra, is that I can't tell you what color it was, but I'm not going to say its improbable that she even wore one.

Nice quote thank you. I agree strongly with that statement. I have even remarked myself in the past, that the beginning of the universe is devoid of such order that we associate to things today. I will expand on this if you want.

You are arguing it seems, that a total lack of evidence makes a God improbable. As a basic argument, I find it... unsubstantial. It sounds almost like your are justifying your position by a lack of evidence, which is why I said what I said. There can be loads of reasons why we have no direct evidence of God, if one exists. Just as much as I don't know what color of bra the pop singer Madonna wore at the weekend.

Err there is a lowest energy. It is called the Zero Point Energy and always corresponds to [math]\frac{1}{2} \hbar \omega[/math] Of any quantum of energy. This is why we say, ''the lowest energy a photon can have resides at the zero point energy scale''.