May 17th, 2012
Theologian: Alister McGrath (1953 – present)
More about his theology: McGrath is considered one of the leading developers and proponents of scientific theology. There is a long tradition within Christian theology of drawing on intellectual resources outside the Christian tradition as a means of developing a theological vision. This approach is often referred to by the Latin phrase ancilla theologiae (a ‘handmaid of theology’). The evolution of thought and method from Newton to Einstein vitalized scientific theology. Scientific theology argues that the working methods and assumptions of the natural sciences represent the best—or the natural—dialogue partner for Christian theology.[1]
read more »
Posted in Science, Theology | No Comments »
May 15th, 2012
In 1865 James Clerk Maxwell had unified electricity and magnetism by developing his equations of electromagnetism. It was soon realized that these equations supported wave-like solutions in a region free of electrical charges or currents, otherwise known as vacuums. Later experiments identified light as having electromagnetic properties and Maxwell’s equations predicted that light waves should propagate at a finite speed c (about 300,000 km/s). With his Newtonian ideas of absolute space and time firmly entrenched, most physicists thought that this speed was correct only in one special frame, absolute rest, and it was thought that electromagnetic waves were supported by an unseen medium called the ether, which is at rest in this frame.
Let an object in a rest frame simultaneously emit two light waves with the same energy E/2 in opposite directions (now having equal but opposite momenta), the object remains at rest, but its energy decreases by E. By the Doppler effect, in another frame, which is moving at the velocity v in one of those directions, the object will appear to lose energy equal to
read more »
Posted in Physics, Science | No Comments »
May 15th, 2012
The doctrine of creatio originans refers to God’s original conservation of creation–a sustaining causal relationship. This doctrine typically entails an A theory of time.
A theory of time (dynamic): The ultimate reality of time is tensed (God is in time)
B theory of time (static): The ultimate reality of time is atemporal (God is outside of time)
The doctrine of creation implies an A theory of time (dynamic, tensed). If one adopts B theory of time, then things do not literally come into existence. The whole four-dimensional spacetime manifold exists coeternally with God.
Creatio continuans entails a B theory (a continual creation). According to B theory, all events are equally real. Yesterday is just as real as tomorrow and exist in the same moment. If creatio orignans fails, can B theory make more sense of conservation?
Can God act tenselessly on e to sustain it from t1 to t2 [a time interval]
read more »
Posted in Philosophy | No Comments »
May 14th, 2012
Given the natural order of universe and its cause and effect network, perhaps redemption and reconciliation from absurdity can be found in biology or physics. For example, consider an adult salmon’s biologically given capacity to swim upstream and mate. In this case the end at which the adult salmon’s activity aims is not, or anyway need not be, valuable, it is simply the end with which it was endowed by nature.[1] The same may be true with human life. The notion may not be too far-gone since many philosophers and scientists find their meaning, value, and purpose in nature. Friedrich Nietzsche based his teleology and understanding of truth in biology. If this universe [or multiverse] is all that exists it seems that this scientific driven teleology may not be sufficient.
Nobel prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg provided a self-comforting dialogue in The First Three Minutes suggesting that his own research in the field of physics has provided himself with meaning, value, and purpose. Paradoxically, he believes that the more he learns about the universe, the lesser of an ultimate meaning it has.[2]
read more »
Posted in Philosophy, Science | No Comments »
May 9th, 2012
The primary difference between realism, constructive empiricism (CE), and anti-realism is where these approaches rest on the spectrum of ontology and explanation. Realism takes theoretical commitments of science to be real, and not just [disguised] abbreviations for observational claims, or useful fictions we create to organize observations.[1] Anti-realism is contrary to realism. Instead of ‘X is an unobservable and X is real’, a la realism, anti-realism purports, ‘X is an unobservable and X is non-real.’ Both schools will recognize that, yes, X is an unobservable but the disagree on the ontic category. The category of ontology becomes muddled, if not superfluous, when referring to unobservable entities. An electron is a useful fiction. Thus, whatever X, if X is commonly referred to what is considered to be an electron, then X is a useful fiction for understanding the consequent state of affairs. CE rests in between these two ideas. C E makes no commitment to the ontic status of the unobservable and can sway the ontic pendulum either way.
read more »
Posted in Philosophy, Science | No Comments »
May 9th, 2012
James Clerk Maxwell’s (1831-1879) equations represent one of the most elegant and concise ways to state the fundamentals of electricity and magnetism. From them one ca develop most of the working relationships in the field. because of their concise statement, they embody a relatively high level of mathematical sophistication.
Below are some equations used by Maxwell appearing in integral form in the absence of magnetic or polarizable media.
Gauss’ Law for Electricity: The electric flux out of any closed surface is proportional to the total charge enclosed within the surface.
read more »
Posted in Physics, Science | No Comments »
May 7th, 2012
Magnetic monopoles are extremely massive particles carrying a net magnetic charge, which is a result of predictions made by all the grand unified theories. By combining the grand unified theories with non-inflation scenarios the expected age of the universe is no long 13.73 billion years old and it becomes about 30,000 years old. Inflation eliminates these monopoles by arranging the parameters so that inflation takes place after or during monopole production, so the monopole density is diluted to a completely negligible level.[1]
Perhaps creationists can use this in an argument for a young universe. Has anyone heard it be used?
Posted in Cosmology | 4 Comments »
May 6th, 2012
Richard Feynmann, a Nobel Laureate, developed thse diagrams to depict what happens when particles collide with each other. I’ve made a rough diagram with an step by step explanation.
The first incoming particle is a down quark, a building block of the proton. By convention, it is depicted by the straight line.- The down quark emits a gluon and turns into a ‘virtual’ down quark. Virtual particles are intermediate stages that cannot be observed on their own.
- The other incoming particle is an up antiquark. This motion/arrow is moving backwards for reasons having to do with relativity theory.
- The up antiquark and virtual down quark annihilate each other, leaving behind a W boson.
read more »
Posted in Quantum Mechanics | No Comments »
May 4th, 2012
I found an interesting paper on the big crunch that may help. It focuses on a non-singular model. In essence, after the big crunch the universe is still something, it doesn’t go out of existence. They’re, of course, setting up an ekpyrotic model. They have an isotropic and anisotropic model. The isotropic has a universe out of control, seemingly, and the anisotropic is very uniform in behavior. I thought it would have been the other way around. What seems to occur after the crunch is that the antigravity, cosmological constant, inverts the universe, ever so briefly, prior to re-expansion. Just like the energy of a rubber band increases when stretched out with the tendency to snap back in on itself so does the antigravity function this way. Why it’s so much shorter when crunched and inverted I don’t know.
read more »
Posted in Cosmology, Science | No Comments »
May 3rd, 2012
Have you ever heard, “Well, that’s just a theory” or “a theory hasn’t been proven.” You’ll find quite a bit of this in regards to evolution–”Well, evolution is just a theory.” Objecting to a theory because it is ‘just a theory’ is a misunderstanding of what a theory really is. Please take the time to understand what a scientific theory really is.
A theory is distinct from a mere scientific explanation. Scientific explanation requires a causal explanation, which requires a law-governed explanation. Natural law describes but do not explain natural phenomena. Newton’s law of universal gravitation described, but did not explain, what caused gravitational attraction. Theories unify empirical regularities and describe the underling process that account for these phenomena. Within theories are axioms, a small set of postulates, which are not proved in the axiom system but assumed to be true.[1]
A theory goes beyond natural laws and scientific explanations in explaining the scientific explanations. A theory refers to a body of explanatory hypotheses for which there is strong support.[2] Theories are a conjunction of axioms (of the laws of nature) and correspondence of rules specified in a formalized ideal language.
read more »
Posted in Philosophy, Science | 1 Comment »
