How could you distinguish the act of creation from a temporal change?

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

STT

Guest
I define causality as psi(t1)->psi(t2) where psi is the wave function of a system and t1 and t2 are two successive times. It can be shown that the amount of energy is conserved if the Hamiltonian is time independent otherwise the energy is subject to change. This means that there are two ways to have an amount of energy from nothing. (1) The Hamiltonian of the system is time dependent and (2) The act of creation. Considering the fact that the only observable at the end is the energy caused in the process how could we just that there was an act of creation or just a temporal change.
 
STT said:
I define causality as psi(t1)->psi(t2) where psi is the wave function of a system and t1 and t2 are two successive times. It can be shown that the amount of energy is conserved if the Hamiltonian is time independent otherwise the energy is subject to change. This means that there are two ways to have an amount of energy from nothing. (1) The Hamiltonian of the system is time dependent and (2) The act of creation. Considering the fact that the only observable at the end is the energy caused in the process how could we just that there was an act of creation or just a temporal change.
Click to expand...
So, your question is “how do I apply the Hamiltonian to God?”. Did your professor of physics ask your group this question? He must be kidding you. And you are behaving like a kid when you take him seriously.
 
JuanFlorencio said:
So, your question is “how do I apply the Hamiltonian to God?”. Did your professor of physics ask your group this question? He must be kidding you. And you are behaving like a kid when you take him seriously.
Click to expand...
No, I mean the only observable is the energy which is gradually created. You cannot distinguish whether this change is the result of act of creation or the result of a Hamiltonian which is subject to time.
 
STT said:
No, I mean the only observable is the energy which is gradually created. You cannot distinguish whether this change is the result of act of creation or the result of a Hamiltonian which is subject to time.
Click to expand...
A Hamiltonian independent of time or subject to time produces nothing. It is just a mathematical object.

On the other hand, I doubt anyone has ever observed a gradual creation of energy. If your secondary or high school teacher is telling you all this boy, he is just kidding you. I advice you to move to another school.
 
Last edited:
JuanFlorencio said:
A Hamiltonian independent of time or subject to time produces nothing. It is just a mathematical object.

On the other hand, I doubt anyone has ever observed a gradual creation of energy. If your secondary or high school teacher is telling you all this boy, he is just kidding you. I advice you to move to another school.
Click to expand...
No. That is no Hamiltonian which creates energy. It is the energy which is constant or not in time dependent and time independent Hamiltonian respectively.
 
STT said:
No. That is no Hamiltonian which creates energy. It is the energy which is constant or not in time dependent and time independent Hamiltonian respectively.
Click to expand...
Yes. And with the Hamiltonian we express something that we understand before we use it. That is why it is extravagant on your side to talk about the Hamiltonian concerning something that can be understood without resorting to it. Did you once more pretend to appear very clever and well informed in the forum? You need to distinguish between being intelligent and being extravagant.
 
JuanFlorencio said:
Yes. And with the Hamiltonian we express something that we understand before we use it. That is why it is extravagant on your side to talk about the Hamiltonian concerning something that can be understood without resorting to it. Did you once more pretend to appear very clever and well informed in the forum? You need to distinguish between being intelligent and being extravagant.
Click to expand...
So do you agree that energy could not be conserved?
 
E
“STT said:
So do you agree that energy could not be conserved?
Click to expand...

My experience concerning the verification of the conservation principles is very limited, STT. I believe on them for my professional life though. My engineers use those principles when they do their balances, and when I supervise their work I also rely on them. So far, so good.

But I think you need to study a good book on the subject. Here you can find part of chapter 4 of The Feynman lectures on physics. A few more questions in your head won’t damage it excessively:

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_04.html
 
Last edited:
JuanFlorencio said:
My experience concerning the verification of the conservation principles are very limited, STT. I believe on them for my professional life though. My engineers use those principles when they do their balances, and when I supervise their work I also rely on them. So far, so good.

But I think you need to study a good book on the subject. Here you can find part of chapter 4 of The Feynman lectures on physics. A few more questions in your head won’t damage it excessively:

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_04.html
Click to expand...
I am talking about quantum evolution of a system. The course is for classical system.
 
In all changes, there is something that changes. So, the temporal changes we observe in the universe presupposes the existence or being of something capable of change. Something composed of act and potency. Aristotle defined motion or change as the act of a being in potency insofar as it is in potency. God’s act of creation is not a change or a temporal change because the act of creation does not presuppose the prior existence of something to change. The act of creation is the production of being from that which did not exist, i.e., from nothing. Now, that which does not exist obviously cannot change.
 
Richca said:
In all changes, there is something that changes. So, the temporal changes we observe in the universe presupposes the existence or being of something capable of change. Something composed of act and potency. Aristotle defined motion or change as the act of a being in potency insofar as it is in potency. God’s act of creation is not a change or a temporal change because the act of creation does not presuppose the prior existence of something to change. The act of creation is the production of being from that which did not exist, i.e., from nothing. Now, that which does not exist obviously cannot change.
Click to expand...
All these I understand. Does God decide?

Anyway we are discussing another thing.
 
Last edited:
Is there any particular reason you ask ridiculous questions and then confuse, distort, and twist the logical and concise answers people give you to your nonsensical queries?

How old are you and is English your first language?
 
Spyridon said:
Is there any particular reason you ask ridiculous questions and then confuse, distort, and twist the logical and concise answers people give you to your nonsensical queries?

How old are you and is English your first language?
Click to expand...
That is not a ridiculous question. Anybody with a little knowledge of quantum mechanics knows that the energy is not constant when the Hamiltonian is time dependent.
 
How could you distinguish the act of creation from a temporal change?
Click to expand...
As a simile, Comedian Steven Wright states that no matter the circumstances, everyone dies suddenly.
“You’re alive…You’re alive…You’re alive…then you’re dead.”
Click to expand...
Thus, “There was nothing…there was nothing…there was nothing…then there was everything.” God knew of Hamilton before He acted to create well…creation. The physical as well as the temporal. He created anyway, not caring one whit what man would later think of it all.

Have we thus come to What God proposes, man disposes?
 
The act of creation with already established ‘items’. With no items to create with, one must create with non things which would fall under different Laws of physics and Science.
 
Last edited:
STT said:
All these I understand. Does God decide?
Click to expand...
When you ask this question, do you imagine God as if He was a human being deliberating between a series of alternatives, asking himself: “which option is better?, I don’t know!”?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top