Leaderboard

Certainly there are creators and those created by them, but the physical evidence seems to show that the religious have the identities reversed.

Indeed so. In fact the naming of the equations is somewhat arbitrary and discipline dependent. Classically both the wave equation and the diffusion equation were derived from the more general telegraph equation by setting some of the coefficients to infinity or zero.

See my previous comment above

I like and agree in most part the basic premise of the views of the OP. In fact if that is all religion is designed to do then I'm in. Anything that promotes a healthy and happy standard of living for all life is surely a good thing, no? I also agree that "if" god is real then I would imagine god to be unimaginable, as I have stated before. But I'm also happy with the notion that there is no requirement for god in the first place.

As others have stated depends on what you are comparing it to and who regards it as value for money. You can do a cost benefit analysis if you like but its difficult to determine the total eventual benefits (if any) at this stage. It provides 1000's of people with jobs It enables cutting edge research that may lead to useful technological advancements It may lead to advancements in medicine, energy procurement/efficiencies It provides access for budding next generation students and scientists across the globe to study the fundamental structures of matter and energy It is just one of many scientific tools that are relatively inexpensive compared to many military tools (both that may be beneficial depending on the context) It enables the human race to gain more in depth data of the universe around us, which in turn feeds our emotional desire to understand our place and maybe purpose. These are a few at the spring to mind, but then I'm biased in favour of such projects.

1. Totally agree 2. All humans are unique 3. Yes, humans created the idea of god 4. We do - humans 5. Time could not not be subject to an all powerful omniscient entity, or any other reality. 6. We thrive to survive, the rest is emotional appeal, hopefully making society a more pleasurably place where all are welcome

When you strip it back there seems to be only one purpose/function - to procreate - (survival of the species). Everything else is an appeal to emotion.

The terminology is mostly for historical reasons, I think, though of course (at least in the case of Schrödinger) many of the physically relevant solutions to these equations are wave-like. But, as exchemist has pointed out, technically speaking they are diffusion equations.

You have a point, I think. As I recall, Schrödinger's equation is not a true wave equation because it only has a single rather than double derivative with respect to time. I think I remember Peter Atkins telling us it is more properly a diffusion equation, rather than a strict wave equation. He went on say, rather enigmatically, that it might be thought more appropriate for a description of the behaviour of matter to be governed by a diffusion equation.............

I really appreciate your philosophical views on this matter. It's truly humbling. If I suggest a manner of thinking would you like to comment on it? 1. All religions as we know are man made institutions, just like you said. 2. All humans are the same. 3. But there was a creator. 4. And we don't know what this creator actually is ontologically, just like you said. 5. Time is not subject to this creator because he is outside creation. Time is only applicable to creation. 6. We thrive to be truthful and seek the guidance of the creator who knows better than us human beings, but we can only strive. Cheers.

Indeed, I am asking questions. Because I do not know answers. From my little perspective, of a small EU taxpayer, whose country donates money to this project, I am a bit worried. Things are getting bigger and more powerful and there are plans to build even a bigger particle smasher? Are you people crazy? Or perhaps there is something wrong with your theories? If theoretical physics is ahead of experimentally confirmed theories, which seems to be the case, there is a question of how far you want to go down this path. So far the LHC project is not that successful, in my opinion. If it did not costed billions I would not have a problem with it. There are high expectations in regard to this monster project.

That question is irrelevant to you because you have a presupposition that dominates your epistemology and negates basic premises the OP is coming from. Thank you for your response.