Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Recently, one of Einstein's young friends, Abraham Pais, reported that round about 1950 Einstein had asked him if he really believed that the moon existed only if he looked at it.

Einstein himself had no doubts as to the answer. In his view the commonsense belief is correct. The moon does exist in objective reality whether or not anyone is observing it.

So why did he ask the question?

He did so because he had long disagreed with a lot of the most important and influential physicists of his time, about the interpretation of that area of physics known as quantum physics that deals with the behaviour of objects in the microphysical, subatomic, world. Many of these physicists were committed to an interpretation from which it follows that nothing - the moon included - exists unless it is being observed. Einstein wanted to know whether Pais was on his side or theirs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scientists have gone mad, whats inside a nuclei? a quark? whats inside a quark? and it goes on and on!

Why dont we all agree that God is an entity which has no form or physical attribute, just as energy has no form or physical attribute but its presence and effects can be seen clearly. E.g. Gravity can’t be seen but its presence and effect on objects can be sensed.

In accordance to Newton’s first law “energy cannot be created or destroyed but can be transferred†cant God be a powerful entity in the form of energy (drawing in the concept of shakti), which was never created and can never be destroyed. Which is a fundamental of Sikhi which state that God is timeless was never born and was there before the beginning.

I personally believe that god is an energy, we may have discovered the four fundamental energies but there are more which are yet to be found, and God is such an energy it is intelligent and I believe will never be found. As per Guru Nanak Dev Ji he says that there is a spark of God within everyone, therefore God fits into the equation where God or energy can be transferred. And I believe that our aatma is a similar energy where it never dies but transfers into many different bodies (hence the theory of reincarnation fits in).

If we look into our body what is the catalyst which drives our body to carry out its function such as respiration? Looking further what is the force that makes the bonds in glucose break in the presence of oxygen. If you say that force is electrostatic attraction projected by the more electronegative oxygen, then what is it that causes the electrons around oxygen to spin and be attracted towards the nucleus, and if you say that it’s the positive charge exerted by the protons in the nucleus of that oxygen, then what is the force holding the protons together because same charged particles repel. That I believe is not strong nuclear force but is that very spark of God which catalyses all reactions in the body and the world to occur.

To sum it up God the energy, God the creator (pair production), God the sustainer (strong nuclear force) and God the destroyer (particle+anti-particle annihilation)

there my two cents!

i may be wrong as my beliefs are influenced if nobody noticed my quantum physics :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

namjap, Albert Einstein also wrote a number of popular works that included speculations on the nature of science and its relationship to theology. Stephen Jay Gould commented on similar issues regarding biology.

More recently, the battles over teaching evolution and intelligent design in the public schools have brought certain philosophical issues to the fore (most notably, "What makes an area of study scientific?").

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good post Xylitol. Can you expand on it ?

Kharag Singh, for two cents, you really have alot of knowledge. Please narrow down to one specfication of your choice. We need a detailed and lengthy explanation which you are good at.

Begum, yes I will look into the theology comparison at a later stage, thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Most atoms consist of a nucleus made up of Neutrons (no charge) and Protons (positive charge) and around this nucleus are negatively charged fundamental particles (ie they cant be broken down into anything further) electrons, these spin around the nucleus in orbitals which are split into four groups, S,P,D, and F.

Lets take Carbon into account it has 6 Protons and 6 Neutrons, now we all know from common sense that same charges repel, e.g. when you put the positive pole of one magnet against the positive pole of another they will repel each other. ironically inside the Nucleus of a Carbon atom we have 6 protons which are positivly charged.

So how is the nucleus stable? Due to an energy which scientists have named as strong nuclear force. There is a certain distance between two protons when they will begin to attract, is this the strong nuclear force i think not. But is God as energy which binds the whole universe together!


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...