The Devil’s Delusion

[edthecynic]

It's pretty clear why you don't want to answer the question.

Witness is excused.


Take Mini with you....

The question has been answered quite accurately. Repeatable experiments have demonstrated that light behaves as both a wave, such as interference, diffraction and polarization, and as a particle, such as the photoelectric effect.

Results of the experiments and not faith leads science to the wave/particle duality of light.

A good lawyer never asks a question they don't already know the answer to, but a know-it-all will.

It seems that you have nothing left but vituperation...
...understandable.

'Cause you're fibbing.

"Light is both like a wave and like a particle, this on the level of individual photons themselves! The wave, it seems can pass through two slits, as waves do…but to attest to a single particle may divide in the same way, requires…let’s call it an element of belief!"

"Wave–particle duality postulates that all particles exhibit both wave and particle properties. A central concept of quantum mechanics, this duality addresses the inability of classical concepts like "particle" and "wave" to fully describe the behavior of quantum-scale objects."
Wave


"...inability of classical concepts like "particle" and "wave" to fully describe..."

Simply put...the theory makes no sense...but you will continue to genuflect before the alter of quantum mechanics....because...

....get ready....

.....because you have faith.

Hey, would it be correct to call you the 'acolyte of astronomy'?
The 'reverend of research'?
How about 'the groupie of the Greenwich Observatory'??
The lap-dog of light theory?


Now, I know it's naughty of me to giggle at you like this, Beets....but, really, you deserve it.

Simply put, you continue to take little snippets out of context, quote mining, in a dishonest attempt to "prove" a point.

You seem to accept the wave nature of light according to two slit experiment, but deny the particle nature of light, so I have taken this passage, from your OWN Wave link, on the photoelectric effect, that I mentioned in my previous reply that you chose to ignore. Again you can see that the particle nature of light was determined by repeatable experiments and not by faith.

Photoelectric effect illuminated

Yet while Planck had solved the ultraviolet catastrophe by using atoms and a quantized electromagnetic field, most physicists immediately agreed that Planck's "light quanta" were unavoidable flaws in his model. A more complete derivation of black body radiation would produce a fully continuous, fully wave-like electromagnetic field with no quantization. However, in 1905 Albert Einstein took Planck's black body model in itself and saw a wonderful solution to another outstanding problem of the day: the photoelectric effect. Ever since the discovery of electrons eight years previously, electrons had been the thing to study in physics laboratories worldwide. Nikola Tesla discovered in 1901 that when a metal was illuminated by high-frequency light (e.g. ultraviolet light), electrons were ejected from the metal at high energy. This work was based on the previous knowledge that light incident upon metals produces a current, but Tesla was the first to describe it as a particle phenomenon.
The following year, Philipp Lenard discovered that (within the range of the experimental parameters he was using) the energy of these ejected electrons did not depend on the intensity of the incoming light, but on its frequency. So if one shines a little low-frequency light upon a metal, a few low energy electrons are ejected. If one now shines a very intense beam of low-frequency light upon the same metal, a whole slew of electrons are ejected; however they possess the same low energy, there are merely more of them. In order to get high energy electrons, one must illuminate the metal with high-frequency light. The more light there is, the more electrons are ejected. Like blackbody radiation, this was at odds with a theory invoking continuous transfer of energy between radiation and matter. However, it can still be explained using a fully classical description of light, as long as matter is quantum mechanical in nature.[5]
If one used Planck's energy quanta, and demanded that electromagnetic radiation at a given frequency could only transfer energy to matter in integer multiples of an energy quantum hν, then the photoelectric effect could be explained very simply. Low-frequency light only ejects low-energy electrons because each electron is excited by the absorption of a single photon. Increasing the intensity of the low-frequency light (increasing the number of photons) only increases the number of excited electrons, not their energy, because the energy of each photon remains low. Only by increasing the frequency of the light, and thus increasing the energy of the photons, can one eject electrons with higher energy. Thus, using Planck's constant h to determine the energy of the photons based upon their frequency, the energy of ejected electrons should also increase linearly with frequency; the gradient of the line being Planck's constant. These results were not confirmed until 1915, when Robert Andrews Millikan, who had previously determined the charge of the electron, produced experimental results in perfect accord with Einstein's predictions. While the energy of ejected electrons reflected Planck's constant, the existence of photons was not explicitly proven until the discovery of the photon antibunching effect, of which a modern experiment can be performed in undergraduate-level labs.[6] This phenomenon could only be explained via photons, and not through any semi-classical theory (which could alternatively explain the photoelectric effect). When Einstein received his Nobel Prize in 1921, it was not for his more difficult and mathematically laborious special and general relativity, but for the simple, yet totally revolutionary, suggestion of quantized light. Einstein's "light quanta" would not be called photons until 1925, but even in 1905 they represented the quintessential example of wave–particle duality. Electromagnetic radiation propagates following linear wave equations, but can only be emitted or absorbed as discrete elements, thus acting as a wave and a particle simultaneously.

 

[Woyzeck]

Essentially the argument has come down to this:

Anti-Christians believe that the only "faith" that is "faith" is that "faith" attached to religion.

They do not recognize "faith" in any other realm, including the realm of science.

Unfortunately, this doesn't work because if that were true, then nobody would ever need to prove any theory because just making the assumption that it's true would be considered "evidence" that it was true.

Somewhere, a scientist is laughing his ass off.

So, if faith wasn't in science, scientists would just call whatever they assumed proof and be done with it?

 

[Woyzeck]

"Generally".

And scientific theories are booted into obscurity all the time, as more evidence is accrued that shows the "faith" in the existing evidence doesn't hold water.

It's all about faith.

The "booting" shows you the fact that science accepts reality in the form of proof despite ego. If it's proven wrong, it's booted just as you said. Science is peer reviewed for a reason.

Anything in the bible proven wrong is written off as "oh it's just a parable," whereas if you start calling other key elements in the bible parables it's "oh that definitely really happened."

Nothing in the bible has been proven wrong.

That was easy.

Yeah, okay buddy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The question has been answered quite accurately. Repeatable experiments have demonstrated that light behaves as both a wave, such as interference, diffraction and polarization, and as a particle, such as the photoelectric effect.

Results of the experiments and not faith leads science to the wave/particle duality of light.

A good lawyer never asks a question they don't already know the answer to, but a know-it-all will.

It seems that you have nothing left but vituperation...
...understandable.

'Cause you're fibbing.

"Light is both like a wave and like a particle, this on the level of individual photons themselves! The wave, it seems can pass through two slits, as waves do…but to attest to a single particle may divide in the same way, requires…let’s call it an element of belief!"

"Wave–particle duality postulates that all particles exhibit both wave and particle properties. A central concept of quantum mechanics, this duality addresses the inability of classical concepts like "particle" and "wave" to fully describe the behavior of quantum-scale objects."
Wave


"...inability of classical concepts like "particle" and "wave" to fully describe..."

Simply put...the theory makes no sense...but you will continue to genuflect before the alter of quantum mechanics....because...

....get ready....

.....because you have faith.

Hey, would it be correct to call you the 'acolyte of astronomy'?
The 'reverend of research'?
How about 'the groupie of the Greenwich Observatory'??
The lap-dog of light theory?


Now, I know it's naughty of me to giggle at you like this, Beets....but, really, you deserve it.

Simply put, you continue to take little snippets out of context, quote mining, in a dishonest attempt to "prove" a point.

You seem to accept the wave nature of light according to two slit experiment, but deny the particle nature of light, so I have taken this passage, from your OWN Wave link, on the photoelectric effect, that I mentioned in my previous reply that you chose to ignore. Again you can see that the particle nature of light was determined by repeatable experiments and not by faith.

Photoelectric effect illuminated

Yet while Planck had solved the ultraviolet catastrophe by using atoms and a quantized electromagnetic field, most physicists immediately agreed that Planck's "light quanta" were unavoidable flaws in his model. A more complete derivation of black body radiation would produce a fully continuous, fully wave-like electromagnetic field with no quantization. However, in 1905 Albert Einstein took Planck's black body model in itself and saw a wonderful solution to another outstanding problem of the day: the photoelectric effect. Ever since the discovery of electrons eight years previously, electrons had been the thing to study in physics laboratories worldwide. Nikola Tesla discovered in 1901 that when a metal was illuminated by high-frequency light (e.g. ultraviolet light), electrons were ejected from the metal at high energy. This work was based on the previous knowledge that light incident upon metals produces a current, but Tesla was the first to describe it as a particle phenomenon.
The following year, Philipp Lenard discovered that (within the range of the experimental parameters he was using) the energy of these ejected electrons did not depend on the intensity of the incoming light, but on its frequency. So if one shines a little low-frequency light upon a metal, a few low energy electrons are ejected. If one now shines a very intense beam of low-frequency light upon the same metal, a whole slew of electrons are ejected; however they possess the same low energy, there are merely more of them. In order to get high energy electrons, one must illuminate the metal with high-frequency light. The more light there is, the more electrons are ejected. Like blackbody radiation, this was at odds with a theory invoking continuous transfer of energy between radiation and matter. However, it can still be explained using a fully classical description of light, as long as matter is quantum mechanical in nature.[5]
If one used Planck's energy quanta, and demanded that electromagnetic radiation at a given frequency could only transfer energy to matter in integer multiples of an energy quantum hν, then the photoelectric effect could be explained very simply. Low-frequency light only ejects low-energy electrons because each electron is excited by the absorption of a single photon. Increasing the intensity of the low-frequency light (increasing the number of photons) only increases the number of excited electrons, not their energy, because the energy of each photon remains low. Only by increasing the frequency of the light, and thus increasing the energy of the photons, can one eject electrons with higher energy. Thus, using Planck's constant h to determine the energy of the photons based upon their frequency, the energy of ejected electrons should also increase linearly with frequency; the gradient of the line being Planck's constant. These results were not confirmed until 1915, when Robert Andrews Millikan, who had previously determined the charge of the electron, produced experimental results in perfect accord with Einstein's predictions. While the energy of ejected electrons reflected Planck's constant, the existence of photons was not explicitly proven until the discovery of the photon antibunching effect, of which a modern experiment can be performed in undergraduate-level labs.[6] This phenomenon could only be explained via photons, and not through any semi-classical theory (which could alternatively explain the photoelectric effect). When Einstein received his Nobel Prize in 1921, it was not for his more difficult and mathematically laborious special and general relativity, but for the simple, yet totally revolutionary, suggestion of quantized light. Einstein's "light quanta" would not be called photons until 1925, but even in 1905 they represented the quintessential example of wave–particle duality. Electromagnetic radiation propagates following linear wave equations, but can only be emitted or absorbed as discrete elements, thus acting as a wave and a particle simultaneously.

Can a particle proceed through the two slits?
Yea or nay?

 

[edthecynic]

It seems that you have nothing left but vituperation...
...understandable.

'Cause you're fibbing.

"Light is both like a wave and like a particle, this on the level of individual photons themselves! The wave, it seems can pass through two slits, as waves do…but to attest to a single particle may divide in the same way, requires…let’s call it an element of belief!"

"Wave–particle duality postulates that all particles exhibit both wave and particle properties. A central concept of quantum mechanics, this duality addresses the inability of classical concepts like "particle" and "wave" to fully describe the behavior of quantum-scale objects."
Wave


"...inability of classical concepts like "particle" and "wave" to fully describe..."

Simply put...the theory makes no sense...but you will continue to genuflect before the alter of quantum mechanics....because...

....get ready....

.....because you have faith.

Hey, would it be correct to call you the 'acolyte of astronomy'?
The 'reverend of research'?
How about 'the groupie of the Greenwich Observatory'??
The lap-dog of light theory?


Now, I know it's naughty of me to giggle at you like this, Beets....but, really, you deserve it.

Simply put, you continue to take little snippets out of context, quote mining, in a dishonest attempt to "prove" a point.

You seem to accept the wave nature of light according to two slit experiment, but deny the particle nature of light, so I have taken this passage, from your OWN Wave link, on the photoelectric effect, that I mentioned in my previous reply that you chose to ignore. Again you can see that the particle nature of light was determined by repeatable experiments and not by faith.

Photoelectric effect illuminated

Yet while Planck had solved the ultraviolet catastrophe by using atoms and a quantized electromagnetic field, most physicists immediately agreed that Planck's "light quanta" were unavoidable flaws in his model. A more complete derivation of black body radiation would produce a fully continuous, fully wave-like electromagnetic field with no quantization. However, in 1905 Albert Einstein took Planck's black body model in itself and saw a wonderful solution to another outstanding problem of the day: the photoelectric effect. Ever since the discovery of electrons eight years previously, electrons had been the thing to study in physics laboratories worldwide. Nikola Tesla discovered in 1901 that when a metal was illuminated by high-frequency light (e.g. ultraviolet light), electrons were ejected from the metal at high energy. This work was based on the previous knowledge that light incident upon metals produces a current, but Tesla was the first to describe it as a particle phenomenon.
The following year, Philipp Lenard discovered that (within the range of the experimental parameters he was using) the energy of these ejected electrons did not depend on the intensity of the incoming light, but on its frequency. So if one shines a little low-frequency light upon a metal, a few low energy electrons are ejected. If one now shines a very intense beam of low-frequency light upon the same metal, a whole slew of electrons are ejected; however they possess the same low energy, there are merely more of them. In order to get high energy electrons, one must illuminate the metal with high-frequency light. The more light there is, the more electrons are ejected. Like blackbody radiation, this was at odds with a theory invoking continuous transfer of energy between radiation and matter. However, it can still be explained using a fully classical description of light, as long as matter is quantum mechanical in nature.[5]
If one used Planck's energy quanta, and demanded that electromagnetic radiation at a given frequency could only transfer energy to matter in integer multiples of an energy quantum hν, then the photoelectric effect could be explained very simply. Low-frequency light only ejects low-energy electrons because each electron is excited by the absorption of a single photon. Increasing the intensity of the low-frequency light (increasing the number of photons) only increases the number of excited electrons, not their energy, because the energy of each photon remains low. Only by increasing the frequency of the light, and thus increasing the energy of the photons, can one eject electrons with higher energy. Thus, using Planck's constant h to determine the energy of the photons based upon their frequency, the energy of ejected electrons should also increase linearly with frequency; the gradient of the line being Planck's constant. These results were not confirmed until 1915, when Robert Andrews Millikan, who had previously determined the charge of the electron, produced experimental results in perfect accord with Einstein's predictions. While the energy of ejected electrons reflected Planck's constant, the existence of photons was not explicitly proven until the discovery of the photon antibunching effect, of which a modern experiment can be performed in undergraduate-level labs.[6] This phenomenon could only be explained via photons, and not through any semi-classical theory (which could alternatively explain the photoelectric effect). When Einstein received his Nobel Prize in 1921, it was not for his more difficult and mathematically laborious special and general relativity, but for the simple, yet totally revolutionary, suggestion of quantized light. Einstein's "light quanta" would not be called photons until 1925, but even in 1905 they represented the quintessential example of wave–particle duality. Electromagnetic radiation propagates following linear wave equations, but can only be emitted or absorbed as discrete elements, thus acting as a wave and a particle simultaneously.

Can a particle proceed through the two slits?
Yea or nay?

Can a wave eject an electron?
Yea or nay?

The answer to both is nay, but experimentation has proved that light does both, thus the wave/particle duality.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Simply put, you continue to take little snippets out of context, quote mining, in a dishonest attempt to "prove" a point.

You seem to accept the wave nature of light according to two slit experiment, but deny the particle nature of light, so I have taken this passage, from your OWN Wave link, on the photoelectric effect, that I mentioned in my previous reply that you chose to ignore. Again you can see that the particle nature of light was determined by repeatable experiments and not by faith.

Can a particle proceed through the two slits?
Yea or nay?

Can a wave eject an electron?
Yea or nay?

The answer to both is nay, thus the wave/particle duality.

Let me add the music that goes with your post....



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dlr90NLDp-0&feature=related]Gregorian Chant - "Dies Irae" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Sunshine]

in the book of numbers it says that you can tell if a woman has committed adultery by having her drink cursed holy water, and if shes guilty her stomach will swell and her thighs will rot. are we standing behind this one too, or "parable?"

There's a cigar store Indian in the local community college. Rumor has it the Indian salutes every time a virgin walks past. Hasn't moved yet!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Essentially the argument has come down to this:

Anti-Christians believe that the only "faith" that is "faith" is that "faith" attached to religion.

They do not recognize "faith" in any other realm, including the realm of science.

Unfortunately, this doesn't work because if that were true, then nobody would ever need to prove any theory because just making the assumption that it's true would be considered "evidence" that it was true.

Somewhere, a scientist is laughing his ass off.

that's the big difference. Science seeks to prove its theories. Religion remains hanging onto theirs by faith.

Well, some see proof in a stain on the wall vaguely resembling the Jesus Christ.

"...some see proof in a stain on the wall vaguely resembling the Jesus Christ."

Attention: the winner in the category of "Unintentional Humor"!!!

Proof!!!???
Did this oaf demand any proof in the hallowed corridors of so-called 'science'???

1. Interesting that those men who as a group are united in their conviction that religious beliefs are primitive should find themselves suggesting theories that include aliens, special universes in which natural law does not apply, multiple dimensions and imaginary particles, based on an eerie mix of technical sophistication and philosophical incompetence.

2. Take the paper by distinguished cosmologists Ellis, Kirchner and Stoeger, that posits that there may be myriad universes with every possible combination and permutation of natural law, yet their essay includes “…the very existence of [the Landscape] is based on an assumed set of laws…which all universes…have in common.” Journal of Cosmology

3. When scientists appeal to various unobservable entities- universal forces, grand symmetries, twice-differential functions as in mechanics, Calabi-Yau manifolds, ionic bonds, or quantum fields- the shovel is in plain sight, but what is about to be shoveled is nowhere to be seen. Why physicists should enjoy inferential advantages denied theologians is not explained. Berlinski, “Devil’s Delusion,” p. 143.



Again?
Why physicists should enjoy inferential advantages denied theologians is not explained.

Would you care to explain it?

No?
Then, realize that you are behaving more like the iron filings in a magnetic field than a thinking human being.

 

[LOki]

Why physicists should enjoy inferential advantages denied theologians is not explained.

Would you care to explain it?

Explained for you, again.

Here's a picture:

 

[koshergrl]

Good grief, you don't even understand your own words.

Per your own stupid definitions, belief and faith are the same thing.

 

[koshergrl]

Faith:

something that is believed especially with strong conviction;

Faith - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Belief:

a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

Belief - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[Intense]

.” The result, we know better than we did what we do not know, and what we have not grasped: how the universe began, how the mind functions, why we are here, how life emerged, or, with assurance, that it did.

We actually have a fairly clear understanding of how the mind functions, and we learn more every year. We probably will never know how life emerged or how the universe began (but then, mythology/religion don't answer these questions accurately, either). And, "why we are here" also isn't something that religion can answer with any certainty. Faith is not a fact. It may be comforting, and if you require comfort over cold answers, that's fine, I suppose, but you should disabuse yourself of the notion that your beliefs are somehow more secure than theory.

When and if one questions the meaning of life, the number of his days, he hardy turns to algebraic quantum field theory for the answer.

Unfortunately, religion can't provide accurate/testable/secure answers, either.

Translation of your OP: "I'd rather have palatable imaginary answers spoonfed to me than acknowledge that I may never know the answers to some questions, or may have to make up my own."

That Faith Exists is Fact. What You choose to put Your Faith in is on You.

Faith=Theory.

 

[LOki]

Good grief, you don't even understand your own words.

Per your own stupid definitions, belief and faith are the same thing.

Half credit for reading comprehension ... presuming you bothered to read my post.

 

[LOki]

Faith:

something that is believed especially with strong conviction;

Faith - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Also: 2b firm belief in something for which there is no proof

Belief:

a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

Belief - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Also: 3 conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

 

[koshergrl]

So?
I think you have established you are a retard, incapable of learning the most basic concepts.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Faith:

something that is believed especially with strong conviction;

Faith - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Belief:

a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

Belief - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Think they'll like this one:

"Every prudent man acts with knowledge,
but a fool lays open his folly"
Proverbs 13:16

 

[koshergrl]

Oh the humanity.

I just can't stomach the arrogance that so often goes hand in hand with inutterable ignorance.

 

[LOki]

So?
I think you have established you are a retard, incapable of learning the most basic concepts.

Actually, no.

Yet again, I have to hold your chubby little hand and point out to you that you are obviously wrong, and that anyone using the internet can go to the links and see it for themselves.

Good grief, you don't even understand your own words.

Per your own stupid definitions, belief and faith are the same thing.

In typical form, you assign to me your own intellectual weakness.

Per my definitions as referenced, belief and faith are clearly NOT the same thing; AND they are VERY MUCH consistent with the definitions that you linked to, but edited for your disingenuous convenience.

I suspect that your real problem with my definitions, is the same problem you have with my use of reinforcing descriptors and repetitive phraseology: precise language allows little room for intellectually dishonest retards, like yourself, to misrepresent my points. Since you can't refute my points by any intellectually valid means, and precise language effectively blocks your misrepresentations, all you're left with is fatuous critiques of my style and cowardly commentary to the peanut-gallery.

Which, no surprise, is effectively 100% of your posting.

 

[LOki]

Oh the humanity.

I just can't stomach the arrogance that so often goes hand in hand with inutterable ignorance.

 

[koshergrl]

Great, another series of blatherings that mean, and prove, absolutely nada, courtesy of Loki.