Originally posted by Bardock42
"Albert Einstein made fundamental contributions to the development of quantum mechanics. However, he was never satisfied with the quantum worldview. In fact, during most of his life he attempted to find inconsistencies and paradoxes within quantum mechanics. His famous quote "God does not play dice" shows how disturbing was to Einstein one of the most important aspects of quantum mechanics: non-determinism. In this paper we will present the basic concepts of quantum mechanics, we will describe Einstein's attempts to destroy it and we will discuss why we can nowadays state that, in this regard, Albert Einstein was not right.""God" in a quotation in an entirely unreligious way
"We measure the 2-point correlation function, xi(AG), between galaxies and quasar absorption line systems at z<1, using the dataset of Morris & Jannuzi (2006; paper I) on 16 lines of sight (LOS) with UV spectroscopy and galaxy multi-object spectroscopy. The measurements are made in 2-D redshift space out to pi=20/h Mpc (comoving) along the LOS and out to 2/h Mpc projected; as a function of HI column density in the range N(HI) = 1E13-1E19 cm^-2, for CIV systems and as a function of galaxy spectral type. This extends the absorber-galaxy pair count analysis of paper I. We find that the peak amplitude of xi(AG) at the smallest separations increases slowly as the lower limit on N(HI) is increased from 1E13 to 1E16 cm^-2, and then jumps sharply (albeit with substantial uncertainty) at N(HI)>1E17 cm^-2. For CIV absorbers, the peak strength of xi(AG) is comparable to that of HI absorbers with N(HI)>1E16.5 cm^-2.
We do not reproduce the differences reported by Chen et al. between 1-D xi(AG) measurements using galaxy sub-samples of different spectral types, but the full impact of systematic differences in our samples is hard to quantify. We compare the observations with smoothed particle hydrodynamical (SPH) simulations and discover that in the observations xi(AG) is more concentrated to the smallest separations than in the simulations. The latter also display a `finger of god' elongation of xi(AG) along the LOS in redshift space, which is absent from our data, but similar to that found by Ryan-Weber for the cross-correlation of quasar absorbers and HI-emission-selected galaxies. The physical origin of these `fingers of god' is unclear and we highlight several possible areas for further investigation.""finger of god" no God to explain anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingers_of_God
"Einstein initially objected to the probabilistic aspect of quantum mechanics - the idea that God is playing at dice. Later he changed his ground, and focussed instead on the point that the Copenhagen Interpretation leads to what Einstein saw as the abandonment of physical realism. We argue here that Einstein's initial intuition was perfectly sound, and that it is precisely the fact that quantum mechanics is a fundamentally probabilistic theory which is at the root of all the controversies regarding its interpretation. Probability is an intrinsically logical concept. This means that the quantum state has an essentially logical significance. It is extremely difficult to reconcile that fact with Einstein's belief, that it is the task of physics to give us a vision of the world apprehended sub specie aeternitatis. Quantum mechanics thus presents us with a simple choice: either to follow Einstein in looking for a theory which is not probabilistic at the fundamental level, or else to accept that physics does not in fact put us in the position of God looking down on things from above. There is a widespread fear that the latter alternative must inevitably lead to a greatly impoverished, positivistic view of physical theory. It appears to us, however, that the truth is just the opposite. The Einsteinian vision is much less attractive than it seems at first sight. In particular, it is closely connected with philosophical reductionism."
Again, Einstein's concept of God, in no way relating to what you claim.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0604217 Finger of God again
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0507220 God used as an analogy
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0410245 "God given" as euphemism for axiom
Man, full of shit dude, it...it just doesn't look good for you.
Maybe, avoid the thread for a few pages and then come back totally disregarding what has been said earlier?
Fail.
That is the context in which I was using god...They even go as far as to capitalize the word god a few times. I don't even do that! (Though, I sometimes make a typo out of habit.) You my friend do not read worth a crap! 😠 😠 😠