Quantum Gas Goes Below Absolute Zero 264
First time accepted submitter mromanuk writes in with a story about scientists at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich who have created an atomic gas that goes below absolute zero. "It may sound less likely than hell freezing over, but physicists have created an atomic gas with a sub-absolute-zero temperature for the first time. Their technique opens the door to generating negative-Kelvin materials and new quantum devices, and it could even help to solve a cosmological mystery."
Not as new as it seems (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So we can make stuff out of lasers now? I would like to place an order for my lightsabre, please!
Re:Not as new as it seems (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not as new as it seems (Score:4, Informative)
Next is a pre-school class with Yoda with a bunch of 5 years kids. Also the kids get the light sabres from the dead Jedi, it's all in the brochure: So You Want Your Kid To Be A Jedi. Oh yeah, your kid need to take drugs if they get to puberty, because love is forbidden and leads to the dark side.
Re:Not as new as it seems (Score:5, Funny)
Just start teaching a "Defense Against the Dark Side" course. I'm sure that will turn out well.
Re: (Score:3)
Darth Vader doesn't worry about his honor, he orders them by the dozen from Farnell.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Not as new as it seems (Score:4, Informative)
A series produced protocol droid from junk parts. And no, that is not the only thing that bothered me with those movies.
Maybe it was a junk pile of protocol droids? Jabba did have a habit of destroying them.
Re: (Score:3)
If I were patient enough, I could probably produce a series-produced automobile from junk parts. Especially if I worked in a junkyard.
Of course, a car yard is more likely to see junked 1968 Fords come through than any desert backwater world is likely to see lots of wrecked C3-series Protocol Droids... except that (as pointed out elsewhere) Jabba seemed to go through protocol droids at a fair clip.
Re:Not as new as it seems (Score:5, Funny)
What the hell want you from 900 year old man? English perfect?
The Doctor seems to be doing quite well for his age.
Re:Not as new as it seems (Score:5, Funny)
The Doctor seems to be doing quite well for his age.
Doctor Who?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not as new as it seems (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I want a laser wallet to store laser beam currency! (That's what they use in the future.)
That'd be the coolest wallet ever!
better explanation (Score:5, Informative)
wikipedia has quite a good explanation of negative temperature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_temperature [wikipedia.org]
Re:better explanation (Score:5, Interesting)
A substance with a negative temperature is not colder than absolute zero, but rather it is hotter than infinite temperature.
It seems this is a very specific quantum mechanical perversion, and no classical systems can reach the state quantum physicists call "negative temperature".
Re:better explanation (Score:5, Funny)
So, temperature uses unsigned floats?
Re:better explanation (Score:5, Interesting)
Is this proof of a simulated universe?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo. Not from the inside of it anyway.
Anyway there is no wrap-around in temperature, as I read the explanations, and without wrap-around it is difficult to go on and say "it smells like" a simulation.
OTOH genesis 3:22 speaks about obtaining root privileges so Eden appears as a simulation with bad security, ain't that interesting.
man pages (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
There cannot be any proof, it is obviously impossible to distinguish between "simulated" and "real" reality
Not that obvious to me. You're assuming the simulators have made a perfect simulation, which they may not have done. Or they could leave deliberate clues, if they so wished, which would help us distinguish simulation and reality. Of course, on a broader philisophical point, you could argue there would still be no difference - reality could be a simulation and still be real. http://www.technologyreview.com/view/429561/the-measurement-that-would-reveal-the-universe-as-a-computer-simulation/ [technologyreview.com]
Re:better explanation (Score:5, Funny)
There cannot be any proof, it is obviously impossible to distinguish between "simulated" and "real" reality
Not that obvious to me. You're assuming the simulators have made a perfect simulation, which they may not have done. Or they could leave deliberate clues, if they so wished, which would help us distinguish simulation and reality. Of course, on a broader philisophical point, you could argue there would still be no difference - reality could be a simulation and still be real.
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/429561/the-measurement-that-would-reveal-the-universe-as-a-computer-simulation/ [technologyreview.com]
Hi there,
You can stop philosophizing, I just deleted that guy from the simulation, he was getting annoying. Incidentally, if you subscribe to the specific flavor of mass delusion you guys call 'Christianity' and are wondering when the rapture will happen, it'll come the day I finally slip up while combining wild-cards and the 'rm' command on my Simulatron 6000 (TM).
Sincerely,
Your lord and cereator.
Re: (Score:2)
Hello God (if I may call you that). Since you're here we just have a few questions:
1. Do you have a Beowulf cluster of Simulatron 6000s and if so what is it like? I am trying to imagine it and I can't.
1a) Yes.
1b) Parallel universes.
1c) I didn't code you with the intelligence to do that. Would you like an upgrade?
2. What is the ??? which comes right before "Profit"? Alternately, can you just give each of us a Billion dollars?
2a) I could tell you that but it would take all the fun out of capitalism.
2b) Sorry, misery through hard work makes for a more fun simulation (fun for me that is).
3. Does Natalie Portman ever get stoned in the presence of hot grits? Also, thank you for creating Natalie Portman and hot grits.
Glad you like Natalie, she's one of my better creations although she was actually created as a way to torture nerds, an irresistible yet unobtainable objective.
4. You mispelled "cereator". Don't you have a spellchecker, dumbass?
Your truly and quite literally it seems,
SlashDot
I mistyped... and if you don't adopt a more polite tone I will refactor you
Re: (Score:2)
There cannot be any proof, it is obviously impossible to distinguish between "simulated" and "real" reality
Not that obvious to me. You're assuming the simulators have made a perfect simulation, which they may not have done. Or they could leave deliberate clues, if they so wished, which would help us distinguish simulation and reality. ...
Why do you assume reality is "perfect"? Perhaps inconsistent results is part of the built-in quantum randomness of the Universe.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, the temp was calculated with the original Pentium!
Re:better explanation (Score:5, Informative)
It's a quirk of the way the temperature scale was defined.
One possible definition of temperature:
Put lots of little magnets in a magnetic field. They will line up with the field. At absolute zero there will be no (technically minimal[1]) deviation from them all being perfectly aligned. As you warm them up they will start to be less and less well aligned until at what we call infinite temperature, there is no alignment with the field at all and the alignment is completely random.
But, if instead of warming them up, you flip the magnetic field they will then "cool" through "infinite" temperature.
If we use this definition of temperature then it would make more sense to have absolute zero as negative infinite temperature, infinite as zero and still hotter temperatures as greater than zero.
This makes the unreachability of absolute zero make more sense. "Infinite" temperatures (and greater than infinite) are only unreachable via trying to add more heat.
Lasers utilize population inversion - which is a state that is impossible via naive thermodynamics and also does not have a sensible temperature as a result.
[1] Zero point energy.
Tim.
Re: (Score:2)
If you flip the magnetic field they will be in an unstable state and therefore all flip, perhaps completely randomly, so as to produce the infinite temperature you speak of.
The entire point of this experiment was to keep the unstable state, stable, which they call negative temperature.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:better explanation (Score:5, Informative)
It seems this is a very specific quantum mechanical perversion, and no classical systems can reach the state quantum physicists call "negative temperature".
This is by no means a quantum perversion, just a natural consequence of the definition of temperature as 1/T = dS/dE. There's nothing mysterious about negative temperatures from a thermodynamical point of view, it just happens that calssical systems don't exhibit this property because they do not come with an upper limit on energy, whereas there are quantum ones that do.
The common interpretation of temperature as average energy per degree of freedom comes in via the equipartition theorem, but breaks down in various edge cases, eg when the energy levels cannot be approximated by continuity (eg heat capacity of diatomic gases) or for non-ergodic systems (some plasmas, I believe).
As to the problem of infinite temperature: In a sense, thermodynamic \beta = 1/kT is the more natural measure of hotness and coldness and has a pole at T = 0. Coming from T > 0, this corresponds to infinite coldness, whereas coming from T < 0, this corresponds to infinite hotness.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Hotness frequently dances around a pole.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's actually not quantum mechanical, at least not explicitly, but it requires that the system in question have an ordered state that is at a high-energy bound.
A classical system that does this is an array of magnetic dipoles in a magnetic field. When all the dipoles are aligned against the field, the system is fully ordered, and is in its highest-energy state. If you look at deviations from this state, what you find is that all of them increase the entropy (because the state is fully ordered), and decrease
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this an unstable state, it wouldn't last for long? The experiment in the article claimed to have made an unstable state, similar to the one you describe, stable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Next on Slashdot... AC informs us that water is wet... Right after these important messages...
Re:better explanation (Score:4, Funny)
Water is not wet, it just feels that way ;)
Re: (Score:2)
wow... someone can't take a joke. Note the smiley face.
Re: (Score:3)
Wow, someone requires the presence of an emoticon to recognise humour.
Your serve, Maestro.
Re:better explanation (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, don't bother trying to learn why this is; just blame it on someone else and think yourself the better man for being ignorant.
Richard Feynman [wikiquote.org]: "If you can't explain something to a first year student, then you haven't really understood it."
I'll take Feynman's attitude towards obtuse, confusing jargon over your smug shit any day.
Re:better explanation (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
While I think he gave himself an out in the specification/qualification of 'first year student', there's a degree of hypocrisy in that vs. this [youtube.com]. (Specifically after the 4 minute mark where he basically says you can't properly explain certain things in physics through intuitive metaphors.)
I don't think there is hypocrisy. I think "explain something to a first year student" implies the student is taking a course in physics, i.e. probably 3 hours of lecture per week times 30 weeks, plus a lot of individual study time. What he is saying in the video is that he can't explain magnetic repulsion to a non-student in a 7 minute video. I don't think that is a contradiction. By the way, Feynman taught the freshman physics class taken by everyone (i.e. mostly non-physics majors) at CalTech, so take it
Re: (Score:2)
John von Neumann [wikiquote.org]: "In mathematics you don't understand things. You just get used to them."
The same applies in many ways to quantum mechanics. Even if you don't really understand something, it doesn't mean you can't use it.
Re:better explanation (Score:5, Informative)
Temperature isn't defined in physics as anything to do with heat, but the derivative of energy with respect to entropy. Absolute zero is the temperature at which there is no energy left in the system. At normal temperatures, it is positive. At absolute zero, it's zero. If you can create a system with dU/dS as negative, it's technically negative temperature, even though the system still has energy.
It's hard to explain due to how things like temperature and energy are defined, not because physicists are being smug. There isn't a proper name for it because it doesn't happen very much. That's why it's news.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:better explanation (Score:5, Informative)
In a body with positive temperature, there are more atoms in the low energy states (moving slowly) than in the high energy states.
In a body with negative temperature, there are more atoms in the high energy states than in the low energy states. Normally that can only happen if there is an upper bound to the energy. Kinda like a speed limit, or, more realistically, if the states being talked about are not related to speed at all, but to some other physical property of the atom (such as orientation of spin within an external magnetic field...)
Re: (Score:2)
A bit more seriously, having skimmed the wikipedia article, atoms (as we know them) cannot have negative temperature. It is an awkward property of unfamiliar matter types.
Having skimmed the summary, someone seems to have found an atomic gas with a negative temperature.
Thanks for that (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Temperature ... derivative of energy with respect to entropy.
Absolute zero is the temperature at which there is no energy left in the system.
Are these two separate definitions, because the derivative being zero does not imply the function to be zero.
Re: (Score:2)
Temperature isn't defined in physics as anything to do with heat, but the derivative of energy with respect to entropy. Absolute zero is the temperature at which there is no energy left in the system.
That's slightly inaccurate. Absolute zero actually occurs when each particle has one and only one energy state available to it. There's still energy; just not enough to excite a particle or transfer from one to another (since each particle can't give up any energy).
Re:better explanation (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
"Technically correct" does overlap with "Correct but useless".
Re:better explanation (Score:5, Funny)
It's the previously unquantifiable temperature of a McDonald's Apple Pie.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the previously unquantifiable temperature of a McDonald's Apple Pie.
For very small values of "Apple".
And "Pie".
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If by "retarded," you mean "correct," then yes, that explination is very "retarded." If you bothered reading the wikipedia article, it explains it pretty clearly:
"The paradox is resolved by understanding temperature through its more rigorous definition as the tradeoff between energy and entropy, with the reciprocal of the temperature, thermodynamic beta, as the more fundamental quantity."
"The inverse temperature = 1/kT (where k is Boltzmann's constant) scale runs continuously from low energy to high as +,
Re: (Score:2)
As my physics teacher told me once, "There is no such thing as a paradox. If your results appear to be a paradox, then you've done something wrong, defined something wrong, observed something wrong, or understood something wrong.
Guess he never heard of Godel, eh?
Disclaimer: I am both a physicist and a mathematician, and I do understand the different way these two fields of study define "paradox."
Re: (Score:2)
> "There is no such thing as a paradox. ..."
Sorry to hear that you had a crappy physics teacher. If they don't exist then why is there a list of known paradoxes in Logic, Mathematics, Science, etc.??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paradoxes [wikipedia.org]
Specifically did you ignore the first half of the 20th century??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment [wikipedia.org]
How Light behaved WAS a paradox for a long time in Science. Did it behave like a particle? Like a wave? Both??
A paradox is something where A and ~
Re:better explanation (Score:4, Insightful)
Surely it's more important that technical terminology be technically correct than intuitively graspable? There's a reason that computer techs don't refer to the whole computer as the "hard drive", even though that's obviously exactly where you put all your files when they're on the computer.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a reason that computer techs don't refer to the whole computer as the "hard drive", even though that's obviously exactly where you put all your files when they're on the computer.
You forgot about the USB stick. So not all your files are on the hard drive. Sorry for this (technical) nit pick.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, they're not on the hard drive (computer) they're on the USB stick (USB stick).
Re: (Score:2)
The big loser for your point is that in reality, terminology for the mos
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a techie and I tend to use the terms "box", "machine", or "computer". CPU is technically wrong also, since that refers to the main processor (excluding motherboard, RAM, hard drive, and everything else), but some techies still use it. I can't recall anyone calling it "micro". My wife still calls it a hard drive, no matter how hard I try to teach her otherwise.
Not a very good example. A large percentage of lay people refer to the whole case as 'the hard drive'. Techs, depending on their age, are more likely to call it a 'cpu' or 'micro'. Is either term inherently less intuitive or more technical? They both follow the same naming strategy but from a different point of view,i.e., the focus of importance has shifted. Technically, is it really a computer if the first computers were humans?
Re: (Score:3)
It seems to me to be a retarded description, like calling infinity + 1 a negative number.
They need to use a proper name for it, not something that only makes sense if your the kind of person that likes to say things in such a way that no one else understands what you mean just so you can claim its technically correct with a smug attitude.
Just means the computers the Matrix is running on happen to use signed values.
Re: (Score:2)
It's all a trick due to the weirdness of quantum states trying to be defined in classical terms
They change the quantum state of atoms with almost no energy, to a higher energy state and keep them there using less energy than the change in state ... so in classical terms the energy had to come from somewhere and so the average temperature must have gone down.... but the missing energy is not really missing and the real temperature is still positive ...
Re:better explanation (Score:5, Insightful)
This is one of the things I love about slashdot. People with no knowledge of a subject call professionals "retarded" and get modded insightful.
It seems to me to be a retarded description, like calling infinity + 1 a negative number.
Think about reciprocals.
They need to use a proper name for it,
How about "nagative temperature". That's a proper name for it.
Temperature is defined by energy and entropy. Add energy and the entropy increases. That means the temperature is positive. How positive is how big that change is. Nice, straightforward, works well. Does whay you expect.
Then some quantum physicists discovered that adding energy makes the entropy go down. Well, plug that into the definition of temperature and the number comes out negative.
So basically, what you are claiming is that physicists are retarded because you don't like how the maths work out and you would rather they change the perfectly good classical definition of temperature to fit your sensibilities.
Deal with it. Quantum physics is very strange and many ideas you bring with you from the classical world simply don't work.
That doesn't make the professional physicists retarded, by the way.
Re: (Score:3)
Hot heads, operating at positive temperatures, are just bouncing around ignorantly smashing into people with their stupid comments and increasing the noise to signal ratio, and causing others to get all hot and bothered as well.
I don't know, the classical and the quantum seem to be quite harmonious here. ...you just have to deal with the fact that with a 'cool head' of logic you also qualify for t
Re: (Score:2)
Having negative temperatures be "higher" than positive ones actually makes a lot of thermodynamic sense. For one thing, it lets you preserve the notion that heat naturally flows from hotter things to colder things.
Formally speaking, it's more natural to think in terms of the inverse of temperature, 1/T, sometimes called beta. In the limit of very large positive beta, that's nearly absolute zero, and is the low-energy end of the spectrum. A beta of zero is full disorder. Negative beta corresponds to high e
Re: (Score:2)
it's perfectly obvious (after a few minutes' pondering of course) to anyone who has taken a decent stat mech course. and if you haven't, it's perfectly obvious after giving it an hour's pondering. seriously, the wikipedia page is very good.
but, only since i can't help myself, i'll try and break the wikipedia page down even further. in short, temperature is the inverse of the rate at which entropy increases as kinetic energy is added to a system of particles. the hotter a classical system gets, the less effe
Re: (Score:2)
Re:better explanation (Score:4, Informative)
they all came to a complete stop
which (seems nobody mentioned this) violate quantum mechanics in a very big way.
Dark Energy (Score:5, Interesting)
From TFA:
Another peculiarity of the sub-absolute-zero gas is that it mimics 'dark energy', the mysterious force that pushes the Universe to expand at an ever-faster rate against the inward pull of gravity. Schneider notes that the attractive atoms in the gas produced by the team also want to collapse inwards, but do not because the negative absolute temperature stabilises them. “It’s interesting that this weird feature pops up in the Universe and also in the lab,” he says. “This may be something that cosmologists should look at more closely.”
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Could we even answer that question without an absolute reference frame in an infinite universe with gravitational attractions from just about everywhere?
And you go on like this, but the universe is expanding and accelerating away from us in all directions and there is no absolute reference frame, yet GR works just fine. Dark energy is responsible for this and was put into the equation as the cosmological constant by Einstein himself, although he removed it and it wasn't put back in until dark energy was discovered in the 90s.
Older hardware (Score:5, Funny)
Sadly, our universe runs on a quite old hardware, which allowed the scientists to overflow the temperature variable. Why the Great Programmer didn't use unsigned longs ist beyond me, rookie mistake, really!
Re: (Score:2)
Since he is infallible, it is obviously a feature and not a bug.
Or, being omnipotent, he will simply declare it a feature.
And then he's going to be sued for copyright violation by Bill Gates. :-)
The color-temperature of the universe? (Score:2)
Maybe because the Great Programmer wanted us to be able to use buffer overruns to invoke the debugger and thus do magic?
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1733076&cid=33042664 [slashdot.org]
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1733076&threshold=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=33043184 [slashdot.org]
"I've thought about writing a sci-fi novel based around three interacting groups (taking off on Arthur C. Clark's ideas of any advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic):
* Those who have expanded human co
Re: (Score:2)
A better link to that entire subthread: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1733076&threshold=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=33039522 [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Or a couple links higher (it was an article on the Fermi paradox): http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1733076&threshold=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=33037634 [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is just due to some young whippersnapper convincing management that switching part of the simulation from Lisp to C/C++ would speed up calculations.
Simple (Score:5, Funny)
Heat is just atoms moving around, after all, so negative temperatures are easy:
just make the atoms move backwards.
I was right! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And your prof was right - the user can still be stupid and you, as a programmer in this instance, should have worked to ensure that the user COULDN'T do anything bad by being (deliberately or not) stupid.
Take, for instance, things like this were a result from an experiment erroneously kicks out -0.000001 K and you allow it into your program to wreak havoc with your assumption (e.g. if you were storing it in unsigned at any point, or dividing by it assuming it was always >0 K).
Or the user hits the minus k
Sub Means below? (Score:3, Interesting)
So is this story misleading to say that absolute zero was achieved. Wikipedia The Celsius and Fahrenheit scales are defined so that absolute zero is 273.15 C or 459.67 F. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero [wikipedia.org]
But in the news story it says SUB and SUB means below, yet there is no mention of the temperature whatsoever in the article and going beyond absolute zero is not possible even out in space! You can get close, but not to absolute zero otherwise you would have created the ultimate weapon!
Enough said.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes you take an idea with a perfectly normal, intuitive meaning - "temperature is a measure of how fast the atoms are going" - and formalise it. In this case that formalism is something along the lines of "temperature is a measure of the population distribution of the kinetic energy of the particles in an ensemble". Well, sometimes when you make a definition like that, and you invent something that doesn't exist in nature - a laser, say - then you try to apply that definition to the new object, and yo
These researchers had to work at 110% (Score:2, Funny)
These researchers had to give it 110% to achieve this less than nothing.
So, we've reached a new low in science. (Score:2, Funny)
These physicists should hang their heads in shame.
Are the molecules FTL? (Score:2)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2115974/Einstein-right-CERN-says-particles-DIDNT-travel-faster-light--quite-right-years-experiment.html [dailymail.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but to me that is just absolute bollocks.
Well, that's your problem, not the problem of physics. Try reading the wikipedia article on negative temperature.
Re: (Score:2)
Except, if I understand the concept correctly.... there isn't one.
Kelvin temperature is a reflection of average thermal energy per unit volume. Most matter still behaves a certain (normal) way and while there are a few high-energy particles, a majority of the particles in it possess an "average" amount of energy. For some materials, evidently, the particles' energy properties are inverse in this respect and have more than an average number of high energy particles. The lowest temperature that you cou
Re:The real question... (Score:5, Insightful)
Proving/Disproving God isn't a Scientific Mission. Understanding how the Universe works is.
If we ever figure it all out we can go.
Well that is how the Universe Works and that is it.
or we can go.
Wow so that is how God did it.
You are confusing the Idea of a God with Religious interpretations of God. Science has more or less disproven that the Stories in the Bible are often not Factual or at least exaggerations. But it doesn't disprove God.
God and Science do not Mix. The God idea exists outside of Science as God is defined as a SuperNatural entity or more plainly God exists out of the rules of Observable Nature, Science is the study of Observing Nature.
This come with a two edge sword.
1. Any Science that states that God did it, is faulty because God is unobservable thus you cannot equate it as an observed fact. At best if there is a God Influence it would probably be considered a seemingly Random Element that will need further study.
2. The counter to this, is Science can't disprove God, because he is out of Observable Ability. Thus any work to Disprove God will be trying to apply God as a factor to disprove it.
Keep God out of Science, Also Keep Atheism out of Science as well.
Re: (Score:2)
What if 'God' is simply the sum total of everything. Are we not created in his image? We, as 'individual' humans are composed of hundreds of different systems, with different purposes, all somehow working together as a functioning whole.
God, put simply, is the set of all sets. Absolutely no problem in science studying that.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, if you make your own definition, it is possible to disprove said definition.
Re: (Score:2)
It is the unknowning masses who created the stupid definition that gets railed against by ignorant science fanbois.
Re: (Score:2)
Except it isn't my definition. It's the definition at the top of every spiritual/religious path.
[citation needed]. This sounds very dependent on which religions you're talking about and/or subjective.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously though, even read a wiki on hindu cosmology. The point is regardless which path you take to the top, once there you can see all the paths that lead up.
Of course, it isn't spelled out so simply. You don't teach a child integrals before addition.
Even the corrupted definition of the attribution of omnipresence of the christian god is from the teaching that god is everything. Unfortunately, paul cor
Re: (Score:2)
Bleah your post has several glaring deficiencies:
1) your definition of God as "unobservable" is only one of the many different (and quite often incompatible) definitions of God.
Science can (and did) rule out many definitions of God (where God should have been observed but wasn't) so for these Gods, science is atheistic.
2) if you start from a definition of God as unobservable, then what you know about this God was necessarily reached only but a pure construction of human minds, an hypothesis in other word.
So
Re: (Score:2)
It is impossible to prove the non-existence of an omnipotent God through observation and experiments.