Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'physics'.

The search index is currently processing. Current results may not be complete.
  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Religion Forums
    • General Islamic Discussion
    • Shia/Sunni Dialogue
    • Christianity/Judaism Dialogue
    • Atheism/Other Religions
    • Minor Islamic Sects
    • Jurisprudence/Laws
  • Other Forums
    • Politics/Current Events
    • Social/Family/Personal
    • Science/Health/Economics
    • Education/Careers
    • Travel/Local Community
    • Off-Topic
    • Poetry and Art
  • Language Specific
    • Arabic / العَرَبِية
    • Farsi / فارسی
    • Urdu / اُردُو‎
    • Other languages [French / français, Spanish / español, Chinese / 汉语, Hindi / हिन्दी, etc.. ]
  • Site Support
    • Site Support/Feedback
    • Site FAQs
  • Gender Specific Forums
    • Brothers Forum
    • Sisters Forum
  • The Hadith Club's Topics
  • Food Club's Topics
  • Sports Club's Topics
  • Reverts to Islam's Topics
  • Travel Club's Topics
  • Mental Health/Psych Club's Topics
  • Arts, Crafts, DIY Club's Topics
  • The Premier League Club's Topics
  • Quit Smoking's Topics
  • Quit Smoking's Ramadan 2020 : Quit smoking!
  • Horses and Horse Riding's Topics
  • Sunni and Shia Collaboratian Club's Topics
  • THE CLUB OF CLUB's Topics
  • Islamic Sciences's Theology

Blogs

  • ShiaChat.com Blog
  • Insiyah Abidi
  • Misam Ali
  • Contemporania
  • Volcano Republic
  • Reflections
  • Al Moqawemat
  • Just Another Muslim Blogger
  • Amir Al-Mu'minin
  • Imamology
  • The Adventures of Wavey Bear
  • Religion
  • Think Positive
  • Reflections
  • A Whole Heart of Hollow
  • Blogging at ShiaChat
  • Shian e Ali's Blog
  • From the cradle to the grave - knowledge blog
  • repenters Beast mode 90kg - 100kg journey
  • My journey into a "White hat" Hacking career
  • The Sun Will Rise From The West
  • Muslim Coloring Book
  • Qom
  • ANSAR-AL-MAHDI (AFS)
  • My Feelings and Emotions About Myself
  • Unity, the New iPhone and Other Suppressed Issues
  • Mohamed Shivji
  • The People's Democratic Republic of Khafanestan
  • Crossing the Rubicon
  • My Conversion Story; from Roman Catholic - to Agnostic - to Islam Shia
  • Inspire
  • With Divine Assistance You Can Confront a Pharoah, Even Empty Handed
  • Banu Musa
  • Erik Cartman Podcast
  • My Quora Digest
  • Transcriber's Blog
  • Who/What is the Dajjal (Anti-Christ)?
  • ZIKR-E-MEHBOOB
  • A Marginalia to Mu'jam
  • Random Thoughts of ShiaMan14
  • Notepad
  • Pensées
  • Reflections
  • Historia
  • Test
  • Memorable Day, 28May2017
  • Zavon Diaries
  • Alone with God | وحيدا مع الله
  • Procrastination Contemplations
  • From Earth to Heaven
  • The secret of self is hid
  • A Passing of Time
  • Pearls of Wisdom
  • The Muslim Theist
  • Stories for Sakina
  • Fatima
  • Toons
  • Saqi
  • The Messenger of Allah ﷺ
  • The Truth
  • Light Beams
  • A fellow traveller
  • Combat With The Self
  • Imam Mahdi ATFS
  • Self-Love, Islam & The Law Of Attraction
  • Basra unrest Iranian Conuslate Set Fire
  • spoken words/poetry/ deep thinking
  • Guide of marriage notes: Constantly updating
  • Zaidia the middle path.
  • The life of a Shia Muslim in the west.
  • Poems for the Ahlul Bayt
  • Ahlul Bayt Mission
  • Twelver Corpus
  • Manajat of the Sinners
  • Khudi
  • Chasing Islam
  • Bayaan e Muntazir
  • Deen In Practice
  • The Seas of Lights
  • Salafi/Athari - What does it mean?
  • The Luminous Clearing - Part 2
  • Shaan e Zahra
  • Book blog
  • Never thought I would see days like these
  • Philosophy Club's Philosophy Club Journal
  • Quranic Studies's Quranic Studies Best Articles
  • Spoken Word's Blog

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Facebook


Website URL


Yahoo


Skype


Location


Religion


Mood


Favorite Subjects

Found 7 results

  1. Many people know this verse. Few however have understand its true meaning. My goal in this post is to offer an understanding of this verse which is compliant with modern scientific understanding. First let's look at the traditional understanding and test its validity. Is everything created in pairs on this planet? The answer is no. Asexual organisms, hermaphrodites, arthenogenetic organisms, schizophyllum commune (which has 26000 different sexes) are all studied topics in biology which contradict this understanding. Then what could it possibly mean? The first hint is the use of the verb "to create". This verse is relating to the creation of the universe. The big bang theory is accepted among scientists and this is where we should look to unravel the true meaning of this verse. In nature there is an element known as heavy hydrogen, also known as deuterium. The deuterium isotope's name is formed from the Greek deuteros meaning "second", to denote the two particles composing the nucleus. It's the most simple "pair" in nature. The nucleus of deuterium, called a deuteron, contains one proton and one neutron. Now this element played a very important role in the creation of this universe and the big bang. The explanation is very complex so I'll try to keep it as simple as possible. Deuterium played a huge role in the first minutes after big bang. It defined the number and ratios of the elements that were formed in the Big Bang. Especially the formation of helium. Helium can only be formed with an in between step of forming deuterium. As you know helium is what fuels stars like our sun and every other star in this universe. As we know every living thing on this planet is composed of elements created in stars. And here we have in Quran a verse stating, "And of everything We have created pairs, that you may remember" Isn't this mind-blowing? Indeed everything "the universe" was created by an element known as a pair "deuterium", which later formed helium, fueled the stars and created life.
  2. Salam I've heard something along the lines of this for as to why god must be infinite If this uncaused cause was finite then that means, that it's sustenance cannot be itself. All creation can't sustain itself it requires an external source to sustain itself. For example your lungs might internally sustain you but you need an external source (oxygen) to sustain those internal sources.If the uncaused cause is finite then it needs something else to constantly sustain it. All finite things come to an end.However this uncaused cause cannot be sustained by something else, otherwise it is not the uncaused cause. Hence the uncaused cause must be infinite in power in order to sustain itself internally. If this uncaused cause is infinite in power then it is omnipotent and hence it is god. Finally, this uncaused cause must transcend all. Something that bought something else into existence must transcend its creation. If it was confined by the same abilities as the thing it creates, then it cannot create creation as it becomes creation since it is confined to the dimension of which it creates. The fact that this uncaused cause is prior to time space mass and energy shows that it transcends everything that exists and hence it is the one and truly transcendent being. Also from a physics standpoint I believe that only an infinite being can expand something infinitely small (or nothingness) into something. Do you acknowledge the fact that the universe was infinitely small at one time and hence in order for the uncaused cause to expand from an infinitely small point (Big Bang) He has to be infinitely powerful. Can someone critique these and add more points as to why god must be omnipotent @Enlightened Follower @Abu-Jafar Herz@.InshAllah.
  3. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-string-theory-science/?wt.mc=SA_Facebook-Share Is String Theory Science? A debate between physicists and philosophers could redefine the scientific method and our understanding of the universe By Davide Castelvecchi, Nature magazine on December 23, 2015 The idea that our Universe is part of a multiverse poses a challenge to philosophers of science. Is string theory science? Physicists and cosmologists have been debating the question for the past decade. Now the community is looking to philosophy for help. Earlier this month, some of the feuding physicists met with philosophers of science at an unusual workshop aimed at addressing the accusation that branches of theoretical physics have become detached from the realities of experimental science. At stake is the integrity of the scientific method, as well as the reputation of science among the general public, say the workshop’s organizers. Held at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich in Germany on December 7-9, the workshop came about as a result of an article in Naturea year ago, in which cosmologist George Ellis, of the University of Cape Town in South Africa, and astronomer Joseph Silk, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, lamented a “worrying turn” in theoretical physics (G. Ellis and J. SilkNature 516, 321–323; 2014). “Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe,” they wrote, some scientists argue that “if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally”. First among the topics discussed was testability. For a scientific theory to be considered valid, scientists often require that there be an experiment that could, in principle, rule the theory out — or ‘falsify’ it, as the philosopher of science Karl Popper put it in the 1930s. In their article, Ellis and Silk pointed out that in certain areas, some theoretical physicists had strayed from this guiding principle — even arguing for it to be relaxed. The duo cited string theory as the principal example. The theory replaces elementary particles with infinitesimally thin strings to reconcile the apparently incompatible theoriesthat describe gravity and the quantum world. The strings are too tiny to detect using today’s technology — but some argue that string theory is worth pursuing whether or not experiments will ever be able to measure its effects, simply because it seems to be the ‘right’ solution to many quandaries. Silk and Ellis also called out another theory that seems to have abandoned ‘Popperism’: the concept of a multiverse, in which the Big Bang spawned many universes — most of which would be radically different fromour own. But in the opening talk at the workshop, David Gross, a theoretical physicist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, drew a distinction between the two theories. He classified string theory as testable “in principle” and thus perfectly scientific, because the strings are potentially detectable. Much more troubling, he says, are concepts such as the multiverse because the other universes that it postulates probably cannot be observed from our own, even in principle. “Just to argue that [string theory] is not science because it’s not testable at the moment is absurd,” says Gross, who shared a Nobel prize in 2004 for his work on the strong nuclear force, which is well tested in experiments, and has also made important contributions to string theory. Workshop attendee Carlo Rovelli, a theoretical physicist at Aix-Marseille University in France, agrees that just because string theory is not testable now does not mean that it is not worth theorists’ time. But the main target of Ellis and Silk’s piece were observations made by philosopher Richard Dawid of Ludwig Maximilian University in his book String Theory and the Scientific Method (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013). Dawid wrote that string theorists had started to follow the principles of Bayesian statistics, which estimates the likelihood of a certain prediction being true on the basis of prior knowledge, and later revises that estimate as more knowledge is acquired. But, Dawid notes, physicists have begun to use purely theoretical factors, such as the internal consistency of a theory or the absence of credible alternatives, to update estimates, instead of basing those revisions on actual data. Dynamic discussion At the workshop, Gross, who has suggested that a lack of alternatives to string theory makes it more likely to be correct, sparred with Rovelli, who has worked for years on an alternative called loop quantum gravity. Rovelli flatly opposes the assumption that there are no viable alternatives. Ellis, meanwhile, rejects the idea that theoretical factors can improve odds. “My response to Bayesianism is: new evidence must be experimental evidence,” he says. Others flagged up separate issues surrounding the use of Bayesian statistics to bolster string theory. Sabine Hossenfelder, a physicist at the Nordic Institute for Theoretical Physics in Stockholm, said that the theory’s popularity may have contributed to the impression that it is the only game in town. But string theory probably gained momentum for sociological reasons, she said: young researchers may have turned to it because the job prospects are better than in a lesser-known field, for example. Historian of science Helge Kragh of Aarhus University in Denmark drew on historical perspective. “Suggestions that we need ‘new methods of science’ have been made before, but attempts to replace empirical testability with some other criteria have always failed,” he said. But at least the problem is confined to just a few areas of physics, he added. “String theory and multiverse cosmology are but a very small part of what most physicists do.” That is cold comfort to Rovelli, who stressed the need for a clear distinction between scientific theories that are well established by experiments and those that are speculative. “It’s very bad when people stop you in the street and say, ‘Did you know that the world is made of strings and that there are parallel worlds?’.” At the end of the workshop, the feuding physicsts did not seem any closer to agreement. Dawid — who co-organized the event with Silk, Ellis and others — says that he does not expect people to change their positions in a fundamental way. But he hopes that exposure to other lines of reasoning might “result in slight rapprochement”. Ellis suggests that a more immersive format, such as a two-week summer school, might be more successful at producing a consensus
  4. Eminent physicist Alexander Vilenkin recently presented the results of a new paper at an event in Cambridge in honour of Stephen Hawking's 70th birthday: Essentially, modern physics points to a beginning of creation. We already knew this with the Big Bang Theory, but Vilenkin and others have shown that even with multiverse and cyclical theories, you just physically can't avoid a beginning. The New Scientist reports the results: Why physicists can't avoid a creation event The big bang may not have been the beginning of everything – but new calculations suggest we still need a cosmic starter gun YOU could call them the worst birthday presents ever. At the meeting of minds convened last week to honour Stephen Hawking's 70th birthday - loftily titled "State of the Universe" - two bold proposals posed serious threats to our existing understanding of the cosmos. One shows that a problematic object called a naked singularity is a lot more likely to exist than previously assumed (see "Naked black-hole hearts live in the fifth dimension"). The other suggests that the universe is not eternal, resurrecting the thorny question of how to kick-start the cosmos without the hand of a supernatural creator. While many of us may be OK with the idea of the big bang simply starting everything, physicists, including Hawking, tend to shy away from cosmic genesis. "A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God," Hawking told the meeting, at the University of Cambridge, in a pre-recorded speech. For a while it looked like it might be possible to dodge this problem, by relying on models such as an eternally inflating or cyclic universe, both of which seemed to continue infinitely in the past as well as the future. Perhaps surprisingly, these were also both compatible with the big bang, the idea that the universe most likely burst forth from an extremely dense, hot state about 13.7 billion years ago. However, as cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston explained last week, that hope has been gradually fading and may now be dead. He showed that all these theories still demand a beginning. His first target was eternal inflation. Proposed by Alan Guth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1981, inflation says that in the few slivers of a second after the big bang, the universe doubled in size thousands of times before settling into the calmer expansion we see today. This helped to explain why parts of the universe so distant that they could never have communicated with each other look the same. Eternal inflation is essentially an expansion of Guth's idea, and says that the universe grows at this breakneck pace forever, by constantly giving birth to smaller "bubble" universes within an ever-expanding multiverse, each of which goes through its own initial period of inflation. Crucially, some versions of eternal inflation applied to time as well as space, with the bubbles forming both backwards and forwards in time. But in 2003, a team including Vilenkin and Guth considered what eternal inflation would mean for the Hubble constant, which describes mathematically the expansion of the universe. They found that the equations didn't work (Physical Review Letters, DOI: 10.1103/physrevlett.90.151301). "You can't construct a space-time with this property," says Vilenkin. It turns out that the constant has a lower limit that prevents inflation in both time directions. "It can't possibly be eternal in the past," says Vilenkin. "There must be some kind of boundary." Not everyone subscribes to eternal inflation, however, so the idea of an eternal universe still had a foothold. Another option is a cyclic universe, in which the big bang is not really the beginning but more of a bounce back following a previous collapsed universe. The universe goes through infinite cycles of big bangs and crunches with no specific beginning. Cyclic universes have an "irresistible poetic charm and bring to mind the Phoenix", says Vilenkin, quoting Georges Lemaître, an astronomer who died in 1966. Yet when he looked at what this would mean for the universe's disorder, again the figures didn't add up. Disorder increases with time. So following each cycle, the universe must get more and more disordered. But if there has already been an infinite number of cycles, the universe we inhabit now should be in a state of maximum disorder. Such a universe would be uniformly lukewarm and featureless, and definitely lacking such complicated beings as stars, planets and physicists - nothing like the one we see around us. One way around that is to propose that the universe just gets bigger with every cycle. Then the amount of disorder per volume doesn't increase, so needn't reach the maximum. But Vilenkin found that this scenario falls prey to the same mathematical argument as eternal inflation: if your universe keeps getting bigger, it must have started somewhere. Vilenkin's final strike is an attack on a third, lesser-known proposal that the cosmos existed eternally in a static state called the cosmic egg. This finally "cracked" to create the big bang, leading to the expanding universe we see today. Late last year Vilenkin and graduate student Audrey Mithani showed that the egg could not have existed forever after all, as quantum instabilities would force it to collapse after a finite amount of time (arxiv.org/abs/1110.4096). If it cracked instead, leading to the big bang, then this must have happened before it collapsed - and therefore also after a finite amount of time. "This is also not a good candidate for a beginningless universe," Vilenkin concludes. "All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning." http://www.newscient...tion-event.html NOTE: He doesn't say 'some of the evidence we have' or 'on balance the evidence shows', rather he says 'ALL of the evidence'. And that's not even taking into account philisophical arguments.
  5. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/06/201369175918244221.html He said something like "even if Muhammad came down from heaven, I would not pay this bill" referring to the price of coffee, (apparently a common Syrian phrase), and this was heard by foreign wahabbi terrorists who mistook it for blasphemy and proceeded to kill the child. tell me more about how these FSA fighters are "fighting for freedom"
  6. Salaam uleikum, Is entropy proven through the Qur'an? For instance, in the verses which state that every self shall taste death and that all is perishing save His Face?
  7. (salam) I would like to share a site that will help u guys here that study some of these subjects. I havent seen the ones on math, biology and physics, but the chemistry (especially organic chemistry) is incredablly educating. It helped me ALOT! http://www.freelance-teacher.com/videos.htm The videos can be found on this site, and is linked to his Youtube channel. http://www.youtube.com/user/freelanceteach?feature=watch (wasalam)
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...