Prometheus

That's demonstrably false. It really is the perception of terrorism rather than the reality that is motivating such outcries. The general trend over that time frame is that things are getting better. Of course, that doesn't mean there isn't a problem, but not enough of a problem to start curtailing rights and freedoms, or any other sort of knee-jerk reactions. Doing something just to be seen to do something is a stupid reason to act. And don't assume that just because people are not willing to give up rights and freedoms that they do not value life. Each person will have their idea of how much freedom they are willing to purchase with their security: in Europe we have traditionally been willing to pay a heavy price.

I interpret it to mean that science without imbuing meaning into what we have discovered is lame. Not to say we should impose meaning at the level of scientific investigation, but once something is 'discovered' we should try to fit it into the human narrative. So, for instance, the evidence that the Earth is found on one arm of a spiral galaxy among countless other galaxies should stand on its own: but given that fact we should seek what that means for the human condition. May not accord to what most people think religion is, but i reckon that was what he was getting at. I think we're all agreed what the latter part means.

By invisible dragons you are referring to the fact that the majority of religions have supernatural elements. But belief in the supernatural is NOT a defining feature of religion. When a Confucian says something like 'as in heaven so on Earth', they aren't necessarily saying they believe in a literal heaven which we must try to emulate - they may mean there exists some perfect idealisation for humanity which we should try to live up to. Though another Confucian might believe in a literal heaven: it is not a defining feature. You can be an atheist and religious. We cannot characterise the religious beliefs of near 6 billion people as the all the same, which we repeatedly do on this forum. You are saying irrationality is, by definition, part of religion. It it may be an extremely common characteristic of religion, but not defining. I think this distinction is important because it gives religious people the movement they need to cherry pick the better parts of their religion, and discard the crap. As Christianity (at least in Europe) is in the process of doing. So, yes, point out where people are mistaken in their beliefs. And by all means be vociferous if they are being arseholes in return. Just realise that they don't represent all the other 6 billion religious people.

But religion isn't necessarily another form of ignorance. We might observe that many forms of religions are ignorant, but saying that religion is ignorant by definition reduces nuanced beliefs to a caricature, and just polarises people in one or another camp. Talking of nuance, on this thread and just about all on this forum, religion is considered a homogenous thing. But that is far from the case: can we really say that Christianity will become obsolete at the same time, or under the same conditions as Confucianism? I'll start a thread on the definition of religion if i ever get time. But totally agree about non-believers being too engaged: it's understandable to see theists get worked up about God, but it is funny to see atheists get worked up about something they don't believe in.

Then the terrorists have won the battle for your heart. It's exactly what they want. A related general question i've had for a while: why are right wing governments - which profess to want to minimise the role of government - the quickest to want to control the flow of information and data? I am just imagining it?

By perhaps i acknowledge any particular religion might not be suitable for any one person, but that's for them to decide, not a dictator. No one on this thread has claimed religious extremists are good thing, have they? Use the quote function if i've missed someone saying so. Thanks for telling me what i think: your joy for dictating other people's thoughts really shows. Is it OK, oh great dictator, if i think you're quite silly? Of course, it is a strawman, fast becoming a straw army there are so many of them. When have i said i have no problem with 'blowing people up' or 'harm themselves or others'? So Buddhism is not a religion and is not facing a ban? What about Taoism, Confucianism, Rastafarianism, Shinto...? Buddhism has its share of extremists, mostly in Sri Lanka and Myanmar and some in Thailand. And, again, if you are talking about taxing or banning things then you are talking about politics. You know it's possible to talk about religion and politics at the same time, right? Who is going to do the banning and taxing... government, no?

Yes, i'm Buddhist, though the real motivation behind my avatar is a small part to try to reclaim the swastika from Nazi ideology. I don't care whether Buddhism is regarded a religion or not: either way i will still go to temple and stare at the wall for hours on end, as is my right. I agree extremist Islamic ideologies, such as Wahhabism, need curtailing. I do not agree that the way to do this is to ban all religion, or just ban Islam, for several reasons. I do not think it fair to punish the many for the acts of the few - or even punish the few for the acts of the many if you think all Muslims are the same old terrorists. People have the freedom to believe what they want. You want to stop that freedom. I disagree. Banning religion would just push it underground, not eliminate it. It totally misunderstands the nature of evil and how it manifests in human hearts. Banning religion will no more rid the world of terrorism than banning football would prevent hooliganism.

Perhaps, but it is not for you to determine what is or is not needed for another person to lead a fulfilling life. The seed of extremism lies in the human condition: religion is but one vessel in which it can dwell. The sooner we realise this the sooner we may look inside ourselves to stop it manifesting at the source. I don't think anyone here is motivated by a wish to not offend people - this 'you're just politically correct' stance is fast becoming a device to avoid addressing points in the same way some people take offence just to avoid actually discussing a point. Personally i'm motivated by a right for people to determine what they think best for themselves (that includes hard drugs and religion), and that simply banning religion will not have the effect you think it would.

Or banning football because a handful of fans cause violence.

Are you saying part of the question is asking me to show explicitly that [latex] L^2 L_z - L_z L^2 = 0 [/latex]?

Banning and taxing things are both political acts. How on earth do imagine this is not also about politics (dictatorial politics at that)?

Life expectancy, quality of life, various freedoms have all been increasing over the centuries so what's the problem? I'm not sure why you shared this. Is it supposed to be evidence that 'all extremists start moderate'? If it is, i can only feel sorry that you see the seeds of hatred even in acts of kindness. It seems the terrorists have won the war for your mind. Religion isn't a pleasure activity in the same way a pop concert is, for some people it is an integral part of their existence. However, there might be a case to rescind religious tax exemption. I'm not sure how much of an impact this would make though.

Some of the terrorists involved in the Glasgow airport event were doctors. So, to adopt your language, doctors do walk into crowds and blow themselves up. Should we ban doctors then?

To ban religion would be to practice one of the very atrocities you are hoping to eliminate.

It's fine to add colour to existence, but let's just be clear on what is the canvas and what our hand has added. It will help us appreciate both.

My understanding is that the Hamiltonian for the coulomb model of hydrogen is: [latex] \bar{H} = \frac{-\hbar^2}{2\mu} \nabla^2 - \frac{e^2}{4\pi\varepsilon_0 r}[/latex] where [latex] \mu [/latex] is the reduced mass of the proton and electron. The energy eigenfunction is given and depends on the radial distance and the spherical harmonics (which depends only on [latex] \theta [/latex] in this case). I can then find the energy eigenfunction, which i make to be (using [latex] a_0 [/latex]) [latex] \frac{-E_R}{4} [/latex] where [latex] E_R [/latex] is the Rydberg energy. I'm still not sure how this helps with the angular momentum operators though. To find their eigenvalues isn't it enough to solve [latex] L_z \Psi [/latex] and [latex] L^2 \Psi [/latex], neither of which depend on the form of the Hamiltonian, only the energy eigenfunction? Hmm... You are talking about [latex] \Psi(r, \theta, \phi) = R (r_) Y(\theta, \phi)[/latex] from which we can show [latex] L_z \psi = mh \psi [/latex] [latex] L^2 \psi = l(l+1)\hbar^2 \psi [/latex] which is consistent with my answer if m = 0 and l = 1 (assuming my -2 was just a simple mistake and the actual answer is 2). Am i getting closer?

I agree. William Blake was another who said similar things. But they do have a point. There are some people who will use science to try to say that we are merely a bunch of atoms, or that love is merely a chemical condition. These things may be true, but to say they are merely such is an added value judgement. It seems to denigrate existence, as if to say 'pah, that is all it really is', with the expression of having swallowed a bee. What the authors have failed to realise that it is not science that says things are merely this or that, but some people. Science is neutral to our reaction to it, one way or another. People are also free to say 'wow, so love is a chemical condition, isn't it amazing that atoms can come together to feel anything at all, let alone something as wondrous as love'. People are also free to say that love is so good that it can only come from something they call god. Not only are they very likely wrong, but by focusing on the ethereal they miss out on the wonder right in front of their noses.

I can somewhat agree with what you have just said while disagreeing with Randolpin's first cause argument. Whether we see a drop of water as the ocean or a drop of water is part of the ocean is a matter of perspective. At the perspective we are talking a drop is different to an ocean - if you don't believe me try to breathe in a drop and try to breathe in an ocean and tell me if it feels the same. To say a shoe must be made, therefore the universe must be, makes the same mistake. At another perspective we are not caused by the big bang - we are the big bang. Science might be able to tell us why we find the stars beautiful - what neural pathways and chemicals are being stimulated or suppressed by the vista and a reason why we evolved to so respond. This doesn't interfere with us enjoying the show, quite the opposite. But i take your general point about unweaving the rainbow. However, science should reduce things to it's functions, if it can, because that is what science does: it doesn't pretend to seek meaning for humanity in what it does, it is simply a practice that tests theories. If it seems that science sterilises your life, do not blame science: it is up to you to bring meaning to your life, and it's delightful to do so within the . So science tells us the Santa Claus doesn't actually exist - that doesn't stop us enjoying Christmas. Likewise the sooner Christians and Muslims and put aside Jesus, Mohammed and god the better. Our science is far more advanced than our spiritual practice, and in large part that is due to various religions clinging to bronze age war gods. The answer is not to neuter science, but to advance our spiritual practice. This will require us involve putting away childish things.

Do we need the Hamiltonian for this question? We just want to check that ψ(r,θ,φ) is an eigenfunction of both L2 and Lz. It's pretty much just a maths question question isn't it? Btw, i now think my answer could be correct - 0 could be an eigenvalue Lz if m = 0. I need to revise eigenvalues of zero though, something about them makes me feel uncomfortable.

A pen, or shoe, is a thing in the universe. The universe is... well, everything. It is difficult to infer properties of the universe from a pen or shoe. Again, i'll ask: if you can imagine something you call god as being without a cause, then why not the universe? Why invent something (god) to explain a problem (first cause) which you then admit is no problem (because god is uncaused). It seems like some vague sleight of hand to get around your own disbelief. I've asked this of many theists who forward the argument from design, but none choose to answer, even in the usual vague terms.

It's a matter of perspective. Every snowflake is individual when examined close enough, but they all look the same from a sufficient distance. That's your measure of life - quite a good one. But others will have a different measure which are no less valid.

So this one has me scratching my head: In the Coulomb model of a hydrogen atom, a normalized energy eigenfunction takes the form [latex] \Psi(r, \theta, \phi) = Are^{\frac{-r}{2a_0}} cos(\theta) [/latex] where A = (1/32πa5)1/2 is the normalization constant and a0 is the Bohr radius. a.) show that ψ(r,θ,φ) is an eigenfunction of both L 2 and L z, and find the corresponding eigenvalues. So i've been trying to use [latex] L_z = -ih \frac{\partial}{\partial \phi} [/latex] and [latex] L^2 = -\hbar^2 [\frac{1}{sin\theta}\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}(sin\theta \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}) + \frac{1}{sin^2 \theta} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \phi^2}] [/latex]. But as the energy eigenfunction does not depend on φ i get a big fat zero for [latex] L_z \Psi [/latex], which can't be right. For the squared angular momentum i get [latex] L^2 \Psi = -2\hbar^2\Psi[/latex] and i'm not sure that is right either. Hopefully i'm just missing something simple, pointers appreciated.

Well i'm sure it's meaningless to a physicist but it might be very meaningful to a biologist. I know a professor very interested in the reproductive cycle of a particular fish for a while. Now he is hoping to use his research to investigate regenerating human cardiac cells after infarction. Blue skies research should not be stopped because of the limited vision of others: it has a very good historical record. Why is there any doubt about this? Unless philosophy journals are different to science journals, if it went to peer review, you would have received feedback from them regardless of their decision. If you didn't receive it, it didn't go to review. Since most reviewers give their free time to peer review i don't think there is anything wrong with an initial screening process to protect them from wasting time on inappropriate (wrong journal) material. Given the vast number of journals out there i'm sure there would be a journal that straddles philosophy, maths and physics suitable for your material: how deeply have you dug around?

No word of a lie i actually met a urologist called Dr Dick. If only he was called Richard too...