I have been intrigued by much of the research into laser weapons, photon weapons, and light in general. Perhaps the most intriguing question I have come across recently was the statement that photons have zero mass – which seems to invalidate the age old equation of F= MA because if M is zero than F is zero but more importantly Einstein’s equations were demonstrated when light was observed to bend in a strong gravitational field – thus photons have mass. But the response to this question was that photons have zero mass at rest but it has mass in motion. This of course means that the photon lies inert in some body but when that body has energy applied the photon escapes as light with mass. So now the question is how do you know that the source has inert photons? Just because they escape when energy is applied is not in and of itself evidence that the photon was in the source object but could just as easily have come from the energy source. But then this opens up another question and that is Newton’s law regarding the conservation of mass and energy. The photon must have existed somewhere prior to being observed but then if it has no mass but gains mass through motion then isn’t that a creation of mass or is it a conversion of energy to mass? If that is true then isn’t E=MC<2 either not true or is there a dimension to this as yet unobserved because that equation describes the force unleashed by this conversion which was the atomic bomb.
But the explanation of this also includes the statement that a photon gains mass through “momentum,” where the momentum is the product of the mass times the linear velocity (m=MV) but momentum has both magnitude and direction so it is a vector which complicates things somewhat but the essential question remains even when V approaches the speed of light although again this tends to complicate matters still further due to the law of conservation of momentum. However, Physicists have declared that while a photon at rest has zero mass it does have a non-zero momentum but this seems like a stretch given that momentum is based on velocity and a photon at rest cannot be in motion and if it is in motion then by definition it must have mass.
This leads me to some other questions for example we are told that when energy is applied to an atom the electrons surrounding become excited and jump to a higher ring but almost immediately they drop back losing energy as light. But if that lost energy shows as light (a photon) and that photon has mass where did that energy come from – the external source? Did the electron gain mass when it jumped from an inner ring to an outer one? If it didn’t and its mass did not change then did the energy absorbed by the electron convert to the photon mass? But how does that fit
with Einstein’s equation?
Although electrons are thought of as “particles” Quantum Theory increasingly leads to the conclusion that an electron is more like a force than a particle which leads to the conclusion that an electron’s mass is a product of its motion – in effect the momentum of the electron determines its mass and the momentum is determined by its velocity. But when you heat an object it may grow hot, distort, or suffer some change but the total mass doesn’t increase, but then mass is not truly weight but includes resistance to motion. Consequently a photon by definition is traveling at the speed of light and thus its mass must be infinite according to Einstein but doesn’t really just prove that a photon and thus our reality cannot go faster than a photon? On the other hand if you did exceed the speed of light doesn’t that just mean it would become invisible?
This brings us to the question of motion. Our entire universe is in motion from the galaxies to the atom. The atom is surrounded by electron rings which are in motion so it would be logical that if a photon resided within the atom it would have mass since it isn’t at rest because the atom and electrons are not at rest. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that the photon emitted by shift in electron energy is the result of the energy applied from some outside source exciting the electrons, but since that energy is converted to mass has the source of the energy been reduced in mass or energy?
If the excited electron never took on mass when moving to the higher state and never lost any mass when returning to its former energy level then where did the photon’s mass come from? It seems to me Physicists are trying to have it both ways. Light can be viewed as either a wave or a particle but if light is a wave it is in motion and thus must have mass. But if light is viewed as a particle it must have mass because it is in motion. In order for a photon to have a zero mass it must be at rest and in that case where does this at rest photon exist?
Showing posts with label Quantum Physics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Quantum Physics. Show all posts
Monday, October 04, 2010
Saturday, October 04, 2008
GOD, Physics, and the Hadron
The world of science is beside itself with anticipation that the new Hadron Collider will finally demonstrate the non-existence of God. This marvelous machine is intended to demonstrate the existence of the Higgs Boson which is a particle that gives mass in some magical way to all other particles. Of course the real problem is that there really are no particles at all, that is none of the particles that scientists like to play with and that are discussed and taught around the world really exist. The Hadron Collider is not only supposed to locate the Higgs Boson but it is also expected to give insight into what happened in the instant of the Big Bang. Unfortunately the real objective is to understand the “science” behind the Big Bang without having to actually come to grips with God, because the truly important questions will remain unanswered.
Prior to the Big Bang there was no space, no time, no energy, no particles, nothing – nothing at all. So what was there? Well no one knows – that is no scientist knows and certainly no atheist knows – there was nothing. So the first question if there was nothing then what triggered the Big Bang? Remember the first thing that the Big Bang had to do was to create space itself because the expanding universe had to fit into something and that was space. Once there was a space then there was a place for all of that incredible energy. So the second question must be what kind of energy was initially created? Well it must have been light (does that sound familiar), heat, and radiation plus other forms of energy but not necessarily gravity, because there was no mass because there were no particles – just energy.
Now this energy was expanding and filling space at an incredible speed, but less than the speed of light. But somehow all of this energy began to coalesce into particles – subatomic particles but precisely how this was done is mostly speculation because there were no particles so there couldn’t be any gravity, but then light has mass because it is composed of photons but were photons created as part of the Big Bang? Light has some really mysterious properties because while it has mass and can be bent by gravity it also acts as a wave so was the light emitted in the Big Bang a wave or a burst of particles? Apparently almost immediately after the Big Bang the released energy began to form particles, a process that apparently remains hidden since it is not ongoing and cannot be duplicated. So once these sub-atomic particles formed they immediately began to join together to create protons, electrons, and neutrons. These are the universal particles that make up the entire universe and everything in it, except of course dark matter—whatever that is- gravity, and the other forces and particles that remain invisible. The really important point is that everything in the universe is pure energy and why that energy has mass is unknown. Of course this what the Higgs Boson is supposed to do – it is supposed to the particle that produces mass in these energy fields called protons, photons, neutrons, and electrons.
The theory is that in the instant following the Big Bang all of this energy began to take on mass and coalesce into particles and then atoms and then molecules, which produced the various elements, which collected together under the influence of gravity which ultimately created all of the stars and planets. All of this can be explained by science even though parts remain speculative. Unfortunately some very uncomfortable questions remain, not the least of which is what caused the Bib Bang in the first place and where did that pin point of energy come from? Beyond that is why do things that are virtually invisible have mass? If every proton, electron, and neutron in the universe is identical why do some have life? Why do some think and some do not? How did life begin? These are the questions the Higgs Boson is supposed to provide the pathway to answers.
Of course it doesn’t take much of a stretch if you subscribe to the myth of God, to come up with some rather simple answers. When you read the first chapters of Genesis you get a pretty accurate, if somewhat poetic, description of the creation of the universe and life on Earth. Somehow I think the Hadron Super Collider will produce some interesting observations but no answers to any of these questions.
Prior to the Big Bang there was no space, no time, no energy, no particles, nothing – nothing at all. So what was there? Well no one knows – that is no scientist knows and certainly no atheist knows – there was nothing. So the first question if there was nothing then what triggered the Big Bang? Remember the first thing that the Big Bang had to do was to create space itself because the expanding universe had to fit into something and that was space. Once there was a space then there was a place for all of that incredible energy. So the second question must be what kind of energy was initially created? Well it must have been light (does that sound familiar), heat, and radiation plus other forms of energy but not necessarily gravity, because there was no mass because there were no particles – just energy.
Now this energy was expanding and filling space at an incredible speed, but less than the speed of light. But somehow all of this energy began to coalesce into particles – subatomic particles but precisely how this was done is mostly speculation because there were no particles so there couldn’t be any gravity, but then light has mass because it is composed of photons but were photons created as part of the Big Bang? Light has some really mysterious properties because while it has mass and can be bent by gravity it also acts as a wave so was the light emitted in the Big Bang a wave or a burst of particles? Apparently almost immediately after the Big Bang the released energy began to form particles, a process that apparently remains hidden since it is not ongoing and cannot be duplicated. So once these sub-atomic particles formed they immediately began to join together to create protons, electrons, and neutrons. These are the universal particles that make up the entire universe and everything in it, except of course dark matter—whatever that is- gravity, and the other forces and particles that remain invisible. The really important point is that everything in the universe is pure energy and why that energy has mass is unknown. Of course this what the Higgs Boson is supposed to do – it is supposed to the particle that produces mass in these energy fields called protons, photons, neutrons, and electrons.
The theory is that in the instant following the Big Bang all of this energy began to take on mass and coalesce into particles and then atoms and then molecules, which produced the various elements, which collected together under the influence of gravity which ultimately created all of the stars and planets. All of this can be explained by science even though parts remain speculative. Unfortunately some very uncomfortable questions remain, not the least of which is what caused the Bib Bang in the first place and where did that pin point of energy come from? Beyond that is why do things that are virtually invisible have mass? If every proton, electron, and neutron in the universe is identical why do some have life? Why do some think and some do not? How did life begin? These are the questions the Higgs Boson is supposed to provide the pathway to answers.
Of course it doesn’t take much of a stretch if you subscribe to the myth of God, to come up with some rather simple answers. When you read the first chapters of Genesis you get a pretty accurate, if somewhat poetic, description of the creation of the universe and life on Earth. Somehow I think the Hadron Super Collider will produce some interesting observations but no answers to any of these questions.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Age of Aquarius
Science and Scientists are bounded by our reality and their vision is limited by the very rules of science. For example the universe is expanding and as the technology allows them to see to the very edge of the universe the scientists are beginning to see that the expansion is gaining speed and the objects at the very edge are nearing the speed of light. Of course Einstein’s Theories limit mass to the speed of light so theoretically nothing can exceed that limit or exist beyond it. That is exist as mass but this presupposes that nothing exists outside of our mass oriented reality. The fact that something could exceed the speed of light is not allowed by science because science is bounded by their mass orientation. This constraint of mass limits our ability to see to material things and thus science declares that if we cannot see it then obviously it cannot exist. This means that science rejects even the possibility that there is an existence that cannot be seen or demonstrated through scientific processes.. Essentially the demands of science limit us to accepted theory which states that an object cannot exceed the speed of light so nothing beyond our mass oriented reality can exist. But science has discovered a whole pantheon of sub-atomic particles which they say exist (momentarily) but in reality all they ever see is the track they leave behind but we never actually observe these particles. The reality of these sub-atomic particles and their existence is based entirely on these tracks – much like the existence of Big Foot is based entirely on tracks. Of course no reputable scientist would dare equate his search for these particles to the search for Big Foot but the evidence for them both is roughly equivalent to tracks or “was’es” because all we know is where these things were but no one has actually seen one although there are more witnesses to sightings of Big Foot than to any of the sub-atomic particles. Thus science is trapped in a box which they built and it is a box that prevents them from exploring things that they cannot encompass in their scientific concepts and processes. Consequently, it isn’t only Big Foot that gets cast into the pit of superstition but also ghosts, life after death, psychic abilities, astrology, and any existence beyond the speed of light—and that includes God and your soul.
To be fair there are some scientists who are seriously looking into some of these things that are labeled as quackery by the scientific community and the irony is that these studies are in fact yielding some interesting results – but of course these results generally don’t meet the rigors of science so they tend to be ignored. However, increasingly psychic abilities are manifesting themselves and it is getting more and more difficult for science to ignore them even though they may not meet the demands of scientific proof. Even Quantum Physics is creeping closer to accepting the reality of an unseen Cosmic Force that may be responsible for the Big Bang.
The Age of Aquarius is believed to be the age of “unity” where all of mankind and our existence will come together. The reality is that our entire existence is mass oriented but that mass is actually an illusion because what we perceive as mass – like our furniture and our bodies is in reality nothing but little bundles of energy that we call atoms and molecules. Every atom in the universe is made up from identical components which are combined in different ways to create everything in our universe including our bodies – but are our bodies just a collection of these tiny bundles of energy that are manufactured in the womb or are we more than that? Are we simply an accidental creation that defies the law of entropy that allowed us to grow from pond scum in the Pre-Cambrian to human beings who explore space? To people who are born, who live, and who die and that’s it? Is that all there is? Of course the atheists firmly believe that but then we have that anomaly – the scientist who believes in God but doesn’t believe in Intelligent Design or life after death.
But the real issue here is who are we, do we have a soul – and if we do how do you prove that? Can you be a scientist and still believe that you have soul and can you believe in having a soul and not believe in life after death? If you believe you have a soul how can you not believe in Intelligent Design? What does all of this mean? Most people believe in an afterlife and in fact this is true from the earliest man and this belief actually was a central theme in ancient Egypt. But the soul is one of those things that cannot be seen, it cannot be measured – at least scientifically – and there really is no way of proving there is such a thing – yet virtually all people believe there is such a thing and this includes many scientists who don’t believe in ghosts or psychic phenomena. But the Age of Aquarius promises to bring an understanding of many things relative to our ideas about God, medicine, education, and life as mankind is released from centuries of false doctrines, wrong ideas, and misunderstandings about these things.
In the Aquarian Age we will break free of those beliefs and false doctrines that characterized the Piscean Age. In this new age everything becomes unified and all of our differences and dualities will mix together to bring us together as never before. This means we will truly begin to understand our relationship to God, to understand energy, the universe, and the limitations of modern science. The Age of Aquarius and the predicted end of the world may only mean the destruction of these limitations and it in fact it will be the beginning of a new age and stage in man’s eternal evolution into a more spiritual being.
To be fair there are some scientists who are seriously looking into some of these things that are labeled as quackery by the scientific community and the irony is that these studies are in fact yielding some interesting results – but of course these results generally don’t meet the rigors of science so they tend to be ignored. However, increasingly psychic abilities are manifesting themselves and it is getting more and more difficult for science to ignore them even though they may not meet the demands of scientific proof. Even Quantum Physics is creeping closer to accepting the reality of an unseen Cosmic Force that may be responsible for the Big Bang.
The Age of Aquarius is believed to be the age of “unity” where all of mankind and our existence will come together. The reality is that our entire existence is mass oriented but that mass is actually an illusion because what we perceive as mass – like our furniture and our bodies is in reality nothing but little bundles of energy that we call atoms and molecules. Every atom in the universe is made up from identical components which are combined in different ways to create everything in our universe including our bodies – but are our bodies just a collection of these tiny bundles of energy that are manufactured in the womb or are we more than that? Are we simply an accidental creation that defies the law of entropy that allowed us to grow from pond scum in the Pre-Cambrian to human beings who explore space? To people who are born, who live, and who die and that’s it? Is that all there is? Of course the atheists firmly believe that but then we have that anomaly – the scientist who believes in God but doesn’t believe in Intelligent Design or life after death.
But the real issue here is who are we, do we have a soul – and if we do how do you prove that? Can you be a scientist and still believe that you have soul and can you believe in having a soul and not believe in life after death? If you believe you have a soul how can you not believe in Intelligent Design? What does all of this mean? Most people believe in an afterlife and in fact this is true from the earliest man and this belief actually was a central theme in ancient Egypt. But the soul is one of those things that cannot be seen, it cannot be measured – at least scientifically – and there really is no way of proving there is such a thing – yet virtually all people believe there is such a thing and this includes many scientists who don’t believe in ghosts or psychic phenomena. But the Age of Aquarius promises to bring an understanding of many things relative to our ideas about God, medicine, education, and life as mankind is released from centuries of false doctrines, wrong ideas, and misunderstandings about these things.
In the Aquarian Age we will break free of those beliefs and false doctrines that characterized the Piscean Age. In this new age everything becomes unified and all of our differences and dualities will mix together to bring us together as never before. This means we will truly begin to understand our relationship to God, to understand energy, the universe, and the limitations of modern science. The Age of Aquarius and the predicted end of the world may only mean the destruction of these limitations and it in fact it will be the beginning of a new age and stage in man’s eternal evolution into a more spiritual being.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Pathetic Science
There are many engineers and scientists who labor in the bowels of corporations who generally remain anonymous and rarely publish anything because they are there to create a competitive edge and profits for their employers. Then we have the “popular” scientists who inhabit the halls of academia and who regularly publish articles describing their latest scientific finding with great fanfare. These “findings” usually run along the lines of “Scientist discovers a link between Twisted Tail Porcupine Poop and marriage”. It seems that women who regularly apply Porcupine Poop to their bodies have an 82% chance of not becoming pregnant. Of course they have a 90% chance of not having any male come within smelling distance but like most of these “scientific discoveries” based on statistics salient facts are left out and thus it is with the latest finding coming out of Academic Science.
The academic scientific community is losing all credibility as they move from empirical science and the scientific method to data mining and statistics. But worse than this shift from science to data sampling is the insufferable arrogance and supercilious air that characterizes the academic scientists. Challenges to their beliefs are no longer accepted and foremost among these beliefs is the denial of a supreme being. Science is becoming more and more of a religion with its practitioners expected to embrace it uncritically and with complete faith. This attitude is most commonly associated with Evolution which is no longer viewed by these scientists as a “theory” but as a “fact” even though all of their evidence is simply evidence of adaptation and not evolution in the sense that a new species is created. But most recently we have the popular science academics all in a lather about “global warming (or cooling depending on the year)” What they ignore in their rush to judgment is that no one denies that global warming is a reality, the dispute is over the cause. The scientists who actually study climate and climate changes are ignored while scientists in other fields are being quoted by the popular press as if they knew what they were talking about.
Now the academic scientific community has managed to combine their denial of God, their overweening arrogance, and total acceptance of Evolution into one finding, and THAT is that a belief in a supreme being is the result of Evolution. Washington University Anthropologist Pascal Boyer in his drive to determine why people who seem otherwise perfectly rational choose to believe in God rather than the more rational non-belief of atheism, has concluded that this characteristic is the result of Evolution. Indeed, he and a gaggle of other atheistic scientists have written a variety of books debunking God. These books include such provocative titles as “The God Delusion”, “The End of Faith”, “Breaking the Spell”, and my personal favorite “God is NOT Great: How Religion Poisons Everything”. These books and these “scientists” view faith in God as some sort of mental flaw or aberration, but fail to see their blind faith in (non-empirical) science as tantamount to the same thing. Faith based science seems very like faith based religion and both require total belief with each denying any facts or evidence presented by the other group.
Boyer takes the position that even though he is an atheist his objective is not to debunk God but simply to present his findings, which sound more like opinions than facts. The academic community believed that as civilization advanced and societies based on science became the norm, religion would disappear, but surprisingly this hasn’t happened and approximately 97% of the population continues to persist in their irrational belief in God. Therefore, the only logical conclusion according to these atheists, is that a belief in God is some sort of Evolutionary defense mechanism. That this belief in a supreme being provides a framework for social behavior – such as working together and fighting off enemies, that allows individuals to survive in a hostile environment and it extends the life expectancy of the group and individuals within that group. This latter point was based on a study of Mormons in Utah but the scientists do admit that this correlation between belief in God and longevity among the Mormons might also be attributed to their relatively healthy lifestyle, which includes no alcohol (not even the highly touted red wine so dear to the hearts of many academics), tobacco, drugs, and unmarried sex. In effect this was not an unflawed study.
What seems to have escaped Boyer and his fellow atheists is that if their theory is correct and that a belief in God is driven by evolution, then there can only be two logical conclusions. One is that those who believe must be higher on the Evolutionary scale than those who don’t believe. Or alternatively the atheists among us are more highly evolved because they no longer require the approval of others, teamwork, or cooperation with the society, and they can exist as totally independent entities. It is fairly obvious which of these alternatives the scientists believe, but they seem to ignore that if Evolution is not a theory but a fact, then we are in fact highly developed animals. In the animal world, those individuals who are different, flawed, or unusual are shunned, driven from the group and ultimately die off leaving the gene pool cleansed of the deviants. therefore, it would be the atheists who are deviant and would be eliminated by natural selection. Their small number would seem to bear this out.
These scientists are so driven by their religion of atheism, that they are blinded by the illogic of their position. They ignore the first singularity that initiated the big bang, they ignore all of the findings of Quantum Physics, they ignore all metaphysical studies like near death experiences, but instead postulate a position and a conclusion that God doesn’t exist without offering any facts in support of their belief. I am reminded of the famous graffiti “God is Dead – Nietzsche” “Nietzsche is Dead – God”
The academic scientific community is losing all credibility as they move from empirical science and the scientific method to data mining and statistics. But worse than this shift from science to data sampling is the insufferable arrogance and supercilious air that characterizes the academic scientists. Challenges to their beliefs are no longer accepted and foremost among these beliefs is the denial of a supreme being. Science is becoming more and more of a religion with its practitioners expected to embrace it uncritically and with complete faith. This attitude is most commonly associated with Evolution which is no longer viewed by these scientists as a “theory” but as a “fact” even though all of their evidence is simply evidence of adaptation and not evolution in the sense that a new species is created. But most recently we have the popular science academics all in a lather about “global warming (or cooling depending on the year)” What they ignore in their rush to judgment is that no one denies that global warming is a reality, the dispute is over the cause. The scientists who actually study climate and climate changes are ignored while scientists in other fields are being quoted by the popular press as if they knew what they were talking about.
Now the academic scientific community has managed to combine their denial of God, their overweening arrogance, and total acceptance of Evolution into one finding, and THAT is that a belief in a supreme being is the result of Evolution. Washington University Anthropologist Pascal Boyer in his drive to determine why people who seem otherwise perfectly rational choose to believe in God rather than the more rational non-belief of atheism, has concluded that this characteristic is the result of Evolution. Indeed, he and a gaggle of other atheistic scientists have written a variety of books debunking God. These books include such provocative titles as “The God Delusion”, “The End of Faith”, “Breaking the Spell”, and my personal favorite “God is NOT Great: How Religion Poisons Everything”. These books and these “scientists” view faith in God as some sort of mental flaw or aberration, but fail to see their blind faith in (non-empirical) science as tantamount to the same thing. Faith based science seems very like faith based religion and both require total belief with each denying any facts or evidence presented by the other group.
Boyer takes the position that even though he is an atheist his objective is not to debunk God but simply to present his findings, which sound more like opinions than facts. The academic community believed that as civilization advanced and societies based on science became the norm, religion would disappear, but surprisingly this hasn’t happened and approximately 97% of the population continues to persist in their irrational belief in God. Therefore, the only logical conclusion according to these atheists, is that a belief in God is some sort of Evolutionary defense mechanism. That this belief in a supreme being provides a framework for social behavior – such as working together and fighting off enemies, that allows individuals to survive in a hostile environment and it extends the life expectancy of the group and individuals within that group. This latter point was based on a study of Mormons in Utah but the scientists do admit that this correlation between belief in God and longevity among the Mormons might also be attributed to their relatively healthy lifestyle, which includes no alcohol (not even the highly touted red wine so dear to the hearts of many academics), tobacco, drugs, and unmarried sex. In effect this was not an unflawed study.
What seems to have escaped Boyer and his fellow atheists is that if their theory is correct and that a belief in God is driven by evolution, then there can only be two logical conclusions. One is that those who believe must be higher on the Evolutionary scale than those who don’t believe. Or alternatively the atheists among us are more highly evolved because they no longer require the approval of others, teamwork, or cooperation with the society, and they can exist as totally independent entities. It is fairly obvious which of these alternatives the scientists believe, but they seem to ignore that if Evolution is not a theory but a fact, then we are in fact highly developed animals. In the animal world, those individuals who are different, flawed, or unusual are shunned, driven from the group and ultimately die off leaving the gene pool cleansed of the deviants. therefore, it would be the atheists who are deviant and would be eliminated by natural selection. Their small number would seem to bear this out.
These scientists are so driven by their religion of atheism, that they are blinded by the illogic of their position. They ignore the first singularity that initiated the big bang, they ignore all of the findings of Quantum Physics, they ignore all metaphysical studies like near death experiences, but instead postulate a position and a conclusion that God doesn’t exist without offering any facts in support of their belief. I am reminded of the famous graffiti “God is Dead – Nietzsche” “Nietzsche is Dead – God”
Monday, April 09, 2007
God And Creation
The march of science continues unabated and Quantum Physics continues toward its seemingly inexorable conclusion that God not only exists but is the Creator of all. Of course this is not now nor has it ever been either the intent or the objective of science or its acolytes. When asked these scientists will answer that they are simply seeking the truth, which without doubt they are, but alas this quest for truth seems to be forcing them into a position that many find untenable. There seems to be a general consensus now that the “Big Bang” did in fact initiate the universe, which has expanded from a point no larger than the period at the end of this sentence to the universe as we see it today. The universe is expanding and the galaxies fartherest away accelerate to beyond the speed of light – ultimately to disappear.
Scientists understand what happened in the first trillionth of a second following the “Big Bang” and understand the creation of space and mass. They can explain how atoms were created, the formation of the elements, the stars and the planets. In short – science feels comfortable that they understand the formation and mechanics of the universe following the Big Bang, but there is only one small and insignificant detail that constitutes the bug in this magnificent ointment and that is that small little dot – that insignificant little bundle that represented the total energy and space of the entire universe. Where did it come from? Where precisely was it located since the Big Bang also created space as well as energy and mass. This niggling little dot represents an enormous stumbling block to science because something must have triggered the Big Bang and created that little dot. Of course the obvious answer is God and some scientists are increasingly coming to the realization that there is no other explanation to this conundrum other than a divine one. And this places us square in the realm of religion, philosophy, and metaphysics. Once you leave the world of physics and science behind you move into the world of the Bible, the Vedas, the Kabbalah, and various mystics and philosophers. From these sources the creation of the universe and the creation of all living things seems to have followed this course.
In the beginning there was nothing not even the consciousness of God, then God stirred and became aware. This awareness was the “I am that I am” and once God was aware that he was he chose to create companions. In a great burst of energy God created all of the souls and these were his companions whom he gave his power and free will so they would be true companions. But eternity – even with God – is a long time so God created the Earth and placed living things on it for the amusement of his companions.
The Book of Enoch clearly states that God created the world out of nothing, he created the heavens and angelic hosts, and that God created the souls of men before the foundation of the Earth. The Book Enoch was not included in the Bible for many unknown reasons but speculation is that his description of the Fallen Angels was so shocking to the Bishops that canonized the Bible that they declared it heresy. Unfortunately Enoch’s description parallels the description offered by mystics and psychics (i.e. Edgar Cayce). The souls began to watch the Earth and the animals and some desired to experience what they saw the animals experiencing so they would enter the bodies of the animals and then withdraw, but gradually these souls became entangled in the bodies through the material experience. Because these souls became trapped on the Earth God created man, but these were the first men. Enoch describes that Angels married women from these first men and begat giants. These were the fallen Angels described by Enoch.
At this point things get a little confused because some have interpreted these “giants” to be the dinosaurs of the Mesozoic, others have taken this literally to mean “giants” like we see in the various fairy tales and legends. It is worth noting that the Titans of Greek Mythology were also giants. But others think (e.g. Cayce) that these early men lay with animals and begat the monstrosities we seen in legend and myth. These were the Centaurs, the Fauns, the Satyrs, and the other half man half animals described in various cultures around the world. Nevertheless it is these first men that were destroyed in the Flood and the source of the wives for Cain and Abel. Once God destroyed these first men he then created the perfect man – Adam and the first woman – Eve.
To return to the beginning for a moment, science has a rather complete understanding of the creation after the Big Bang but they are snagged on the problem of where that pesky dot came from, there remains another problem just as large and that is the origin of life. Current thinking is that somehow various amino acids got together and formed self-replicating cells and from this sprang all life. Essentially Darwin is correct and from these simple cells evolution (defying the laws of entropy) created all of the life forms on Earth. Unfortunately there is a small problem and that is what is known as the Cambrian Explosion. While the Pre-Cambrian is characterized by simple life forms like worms and pond scum, the Cambrian is suddenly alive with many complex life forms, complete with eyes, skeletons, sex, and complicated lives. This pattern continues throughout the Geologic Ages as various species simply appear without any known precursors.
Paleontologists are attempting to answer these problems with ever more complicated theories in an attempt to prove Darwin is right and Evolution is the answer to life on Earth. They might be right but so far it looks like God might have had a hand in it. The origin of the Universe and the origin of Life may forever be hidden from us, but it is very difficult to explain our world and the universe without incorporating God We are told that God created man in his image and if this is so, then I think Ralph Waldo Emerson said it best “Man is a God in ruins”.
To read Enoch try the following link.
The Book of Enoch
Scientists understand what happened in the first trillionth of a second following the “Big Bang” and understand the creation of space and mass. They can explain how atoms were created, the formation of the elements, the stars and the planets. In short – science feels comfortable that they understand the formation and mechanics of the universe following the Big Bang, but there is only one small and insignificant detail that constitutes the bug in this magnificent ointment and that is that small little dot – that insignificant little bundle that represented the total energy and space of the entire universe. Where did it come from? Where precisely was it located since the Big Bang also created space as well as energy and mass. This niggling little dot represents an enormous stumbling block to science because something must have triggered the Big Bang and created that little dot. Of course the obvious answer is God and some scientists are increasingly coming to the realization that there is no other explanation to this conundrum other than a divine one. And this places us square in the realm of religion, philosophy, and metaphysics. Once you leave the world of physics and science behind you move into the world of the Bible, the Vedas, the Kabbalah, and various mystics and philosophers. From these sources the creation of the universe and the creation of all living things seems to have followed this course.
In the beginning there was nothing not even the consciousness of God, then God stirred and became aware. This awareness was the “I am that I am” and once God was aware that he was he chose to create companions. In a great burst of energy God created all of the souls and these were his companions whom he gave his power and free will so they would be true companions. But eternity – even with God – is a long time so God created the Earth and placed living things on it for the amusement of his companions.
The Book of Enoch clearly states that God created the world out of nothing, he created the heavens and angelic hosts, and that God created the souls of men before the foundation of the Earth. The Book Enoch was not included in the Bible for many unknown reasons but speculation is that his description of the Fallen Angels was so shocking to the Bishops that canonized the Bible that they declared it heresy. Unfortunately Enoch’s description parallels the description offered by mystics and psychics (i.e. Edgar Cayce). The souls began to watch the Earth and the animals and some desired to experience what they saw the animals experiencing so they would enter the bodies of the animals and then withdraw, but gradually these souls became entangled in the bodies through the material experience. Because these souls became trapped on the Earth God created man, but these were the first men. Enoch describes that Angels married women from these first men and begat giants. These were the fallen Angels described by Enoch.
At this point things get a little confused because some have interpreted these “giants” to be the dinosaurs of the Mesozoic, others have taken this literally to mean “giants” like we see in the various fairy tales and legends. It is worth noting that the Titans of Greek Mythology were also giants. But others think (e.g. Cayce) that these early men lay with animals and begat the monstrosities we seen in legend and myth. These were the Centaurs, the Fauns, the Satyrs, and the other half man half animals described in various cultures around the world. Nevertheless it is these first men that were destroyed in the Flood and the source of the wives for Cain and Abel. Once God destroyed these first men he then created the perfect man – Adam and the first woman – Eve.
To return to the beginning for a moment, science has a rather complete understanding of the creation after the Big Bang but they are snagged on the problem of where that pesky dot came from, there remains another problem just as large and that is the origin of life. Current thinking is that somehow various amino acids got together and formed self-replicating cells and from this sprang all life. Essentially Darwin is correct and from these simple cells evolution (defying the laws of entropy) created all of the life forms on Earth. Unfortunately there is a small problem and that is what is known as the Cambrian Explosion. While the Pre-Cambrian is characterized by simple life forms like worms and pond scum, the Cambrian is suddenly alive with many complex life forms, complete with eyes, skeletons, sex, and complicated lives. This pattern continues throughout the Geologic Ages as various species simply appear without any known precursors.
Paleontologists are attempting to answer these problems with ever more complicated theories in an attempt to prove Darwin is right and Evolution is the answer to life on Earth. They might be right but so far it looks like God might have had a hand in it. The origin of the Universe and the origin of Life may forever be hidden from us, but it is very difficult to explain our world and the universe without incorporating God We are told that God created man in his image and if this is so, then I think Ralph Waldo Emerson said it best “Man is a God in ruins”.
To read Enoch try the following link.
The Book of Enoch
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Time and Time Again
Time is a problem and one that continues to plague scientists and Quantum Physicists in particular. The pesky problem is the question has the universe always existed or was there a beginning? The Universe is expanding and further out we peer, we are not only looking across billions of years but we are observing that the rate of expansion increases with distance (time). That only becomes a problem if you look at this situation in reverse, that is the expanding universe implies that at some point it was all squished together into what is called a “singularity” and the “Big Bang.” But, quite obviously this poses some very difficult questions, such as; where did this energy come from initially? what was there before the big bang?, will there be a “big crunch as the universe contracts? Of course these questions – even unanswered – lead to the additional questions of; is there a beginning of time? Is there and end of time? Is there a God? If the universe is pure energy then why does some of this energy manifest itself as mass? And of course that really fundamental question that remains unanswered – how did life begin and why?
To accept God as a creator goes against the basis of science so cosmologists are determined to find the answers to these questions based on science – in effect demonstrating that God does not exist. This struggle is becoming increasingly difficult as each scientific discover brings more questions and drives the convergence of philosophy and science ever closer. The universe is expanding at an inflationary rate – meaning the galaxies are moving away from each other at an increasing rate. Of course this poses some problems with the Einstein’s equations which limit speeds to the speed of light. Therefore, the speed of expansion is bounded and what happens when that boundary is reached – in fact as it takes ever more energy as the speed increases the expansion would slow and stop – meaning that the universe would begin to contract – much like a rubber band that has been stretched to its limit and snaps back to its original shape – the “Big Crunch” and that brings us back to the singularity of the beginning known as the big bang.
However, if our universe was indeed expanding at an equal speed in all directions it would lead to a spherical shape and the speed of expansion would not allow for the creation of galaxies (matter) so the universe must be irregular (The Universe in a Nutshell by Hawking). But in order to establish this view, physicists have postulated “Imaginary Time”, which is really not imaginary but simply another – and very bizarre – way of viewing our universe and reality. If we view our
real time reality as a line with our “now” as a center point on that line, then our past would be to the left and our future would be to the right or in front of us. But imaginary time runs perpendicular to that now point and it represents our movement away from the singularity. We can then move into the future which will cause the Singularity to move upward in order to keep the symmetry of the model. Or in an alternate view as we move away from the singularity our future expands.
This model also introduces the concept of multiple dimensions and histories. Unfortunately the number of dimensions continued to grow as efforts to support string theory expanded but more recently the number of dimensions has declined to a possible eleven. By introducing imaginary time the problems associated with singularities in real time disappear, so it allows for a smoother view of the universe. While all of this effort and scientific struggle are interesting they really don’t address some of the fundamental questions. St Thomas Aquinas stated that asking what God was doing before the creation was a nonsensical question that seems to be the position of current scientific thought as well. What was there before the Big Bang? Did space exist? Where did this primordial burst of energy come from? How was it created or was it spontaneous? If it was spontaneous then what were the conditions that allowed it and of course that implies that space – empty space -- existed prior to the Big Bang but that in itself is nonsensical.
Logically it seems that there was a beginning of time and there will be an ending of time and science seems to agree on this point. But the creation of space and time seems to still be elusive unless – of course – we accept God.
To accept God as a creator goes against the basis of science so cosmologists are determined to find the answers to these questions based on science – in effect demonstrating that God does not exist. This struggle is becoming increasingly difficult as each scientific discover brings more questions and drives the convergence of philosophy and science ever closer. The universe is expanding at an inflationary rate – meaning the galaxies are moving away from each other at an increasing rate. Of course this poses some problems with the Einstein’s equations which limit speeds to the speed of light. Therefore, the speed of expansion is bounded and what happens when that boundary is reached – in fact as it takes ever more energy as the speed increases the expansion would slow and stop – meaning that the universe would begin to contract – much like a rubber band that has been stretched to its limit and snaps back to its original shape – the “Big Crunch” and that brings us back to the singularity of the beginning known as the big bang.
However, if our universe was indeed expanding at an equal speed in all directions it would lead to a spherical shape and the speed of expansion would not allow for the creation of galaxies (matter) so the universe must be irregular (The Universe in a Nutshell by Hawking). But in order to establish this view, physicists have postulated “Imaginary Time”, which is really not imaginary but simply another – and very bizarre – way of viewing our universe and reality. If we view our
real time reality as a line with our “now” as a center point on that line, then our past would be to the left and our future would be to the right or in front of us. But imaginary time runs perpendicular to that now point and it represents our movement away from the singularity. We can then move into the future which will cause the Singularity to move upward in order to keep the symmetry of the model. Or in an alternate view as we move away from the singularity our future expands.
This model also introduces the concept of multiple dimensions and histories. Unfortunately the number of dimensions continued to grow as efforts to support string theory expanded but more recently the number of dimensions has declined to a possible eleven. By introducing imaginary time the problems associated with singularities in real time disappear, so it allows for a smoother view of the universe. While all of this effort and scientific struggle are interesting they really don’t address some of the fundamental questions. St Thomas Aquinas stated that asking what God was doing before the creation was a nonsensical question that seems to be the position of current scientific thought as well. What was there before the Big Bang? Did space exist? Where did this primordial burst of energy come from? How was it created or was it spontaneous? If it was spontaneous then what were the conditions that allowed it and of course that implies that space – empty space -- existed prior to the Big Bang but that in itself is nonsensical.
Logically it seems that there was a beginning of time and there will be an ending of time and science seems to agree on this point. But the creation of space and time seems to still be elusive unless – of course – we accept God.
Monday, November 01, 2004
Photons have mass?
So the question that was raised initially was how does the classic physics equation of F=MA apply if M is the mass of a photon, which has zero mass. The response was that a photon has zero mass at rest but has mass in motion giving it “momentum”. The definition of momentum follows:
Momentum, also linear momentum, in physics, fundamental quantity characterizing the motion of any object (see Mechanics). It is the product of the mass of a moving particle multiplied by its linear velocity. Momentum is a vector quantity, which means that it has both magnitude and direction. The total momentum of a system made up of a collection of objects is the vector sum of all the individual objects' momenta. For an isolated system, total momentum remains unchanged over time; this is called conservation of momentum. For example, when a batter hits a baseball, the momentum of the bat just before it strikes the ball plus the momentum of the pitched baseball is equal to the momentum of the bat after it strikes the ball plus the momentum of the hit baseball. As another example, imagine a beaver jumping off a stationary log that is floating on water. Before the beaver jumps, the log and the beaver are not moving, so the total momentum is zero. Upon jumping, the beaver acquires forward momentum, and at the same time the log moves in the other direction with an equal and opposite momentum; the total momentum of the beaver plus the log remains at zero.
Conservation of momentum is one of the most important and universal of the conservation laws of physics; it holds true even in situations where modern theories
of physics apply. In particular, conservation of momentum is valid in quantum mechanics (see Quantum Theory), which describes atomic and nuclear phenomena, and in relativistic mechanics, which must be used when systems move with velocities that approach the speed of light (see Relativity).
According to Newton's second law of motion—named after the English astronomer, mathematician, and physicist Sir Isaac Newton—the force acting on a body in motion must be equal to its time rate of change of momentum. Another way of stating Newton's second law is that the impulse—that is, the product of the force multiplied by the time over which it acts on a body—equals the change of momentum of the body.
With that understanding of Momentum we turn to the Physicist’s explanation which follows – read carefully.
While light does indeed have no rest mass, it has momentum. It also has a relativistic mass, but this is concept is rather outdated. The term mass in modern terminology 'mass' refers to the invariant mass, which is zero for photons. This invariant mass is defined by
m = sqrt(E^2/c^4 - p^2/c^2)
where E is energy, c the speed of light, and p the momentum. In the case of light, p = E/c, so the mass is zero. But you already know that. The important thing is that light has a non-zero momentum despite having zero mass.
In an atom, there are electrons orbiting a nucleus in discrete energy levels. This just means that there are only certain distances from the nucleus an electron can be. When an electron becomes excited due to something transferring energy to it, the electron goes to a higher energy level, where it will stay there for an extremely short time. When the electron falls back to its original energy level, it emits a photon, and sometimes the photon is in the visible range of the spectrum. If you search for "Bohr atom" or "spectra" online, you should find some nice diagrams that illustrate this.
As for a light bulb, well, that's filled with an inert gas, usually argon. The bulb also contains a (usually) tungsten wire that carries the electric current. In a solid conductor, the current is generated by the movement of free electrons through the wire. The electrons bump into atoms along their way, and excite the bound electrons, causing them to go to a higher energy level. When the electrons return to their ground state, a photon is emitted. Metals tend to emit in the infa-red, which is invisible to humans. However, if heated to a high enough temperature, the metal will emit in the visible range of the EM spectrum.
This explanation seems very glib to me and smacks of the usual scientific game of naming things without actually understanding them. The fundamental problem here – in fact there are several fundamental problems. Consider that light has no mass at rest – because light is (presumably) never at rest. However, light does in fact have mass and this has been demonstrated (Einstein) because light bends when passed through a strong gravitational field. If a “photon” is emitted when an electron takes on energy that moves it to a higher shell and then returns to its natural state it gives up a photon – the photon has energy but no mass – except that it does have mass. In fact the electron has mass, better still the universe is essentially all energy and that energy has mass. This leaves with these questions:
• If the electron takes on energy and changes its state why doesn’t it take on Mass?
• If the electron gives up a photon when returning to its natural state where does the photon’s mass come from?
• If the electron never took on any mass when moving to the higher state and never lost any mass when returning and the energy level remained the same throughout then where did the photon’s mass come from? Why doesn’t the law of conservation of energy apply?
• If the free electron bumps into bound electrons why isn’t there any loss or gain of energy?
It seems to me that when two objects collide there is an exchange of kinetic energy but with electrons this doesn’t seem to apply – why? If that exchange is the photon and all it receives is energy then that energy has mass – but where did it come from since the electrons neither gained nor lost mass.
Obviously I am not a physicist and my questions might (probably do) parade my ignorance, but this whole explanation of the mass of a photon doesn’t ring true. I think – intuitively I admit – that photons have mass and that light can be captured and weapon-ized (Star Trek’s Photon Torpedoes). I think this is an illustration of how science is structured to fit the thinking of the scientists without any real explanation of what or why.
Momentum, also linear momentum, in physics, fundamental quantity characterizing the motion of any object (see Mechanics). It is the product of the mass of a moving particle multiplied by its linear velocity. Momentum is a vector quantity, which means that it has both magnitude and direction. The total momentum of a system made up of a collection of objects is the vector sum of all the individual objects' momenta. For an isolated system, total momentum remains unchanged over time; this is called conservation of momentum. For example, when a batter hits a baseball, the momentum of the bat just before it strikes the ball plus the momentum of the pitched baseball is equal to the momentum of the bat after it strikes the ball plus the momentum of the hit baseball. As another example, imagine a beaver jumping off a stationary log that is floating on water. Before the beaver jumps, the log and the beaver are not moving, so the total momentum is zero. Upon jumping, the beaver acquires forward momentum, and at the same time the log moves in the other direction with an equal and opposite momentum; the total momentum of the beaver plus the log remains at zero.
Conservation of momentum is one of the most important and universal of the conservation laws of physics; it holds true even in situations where modern theories
of physics apply. In particular, conservation of momentum is valid in quantum mechanics (see Quantum Theory), which describes atomic and nuclear phenomena, and in relativistic mechanics, which must be used when systems move with velocities that approach the speed of light (see Relativity).
According to Newton's second law of motion—named after the English astronomer, mathematician, and physicist Sir Isaac Newton—the force acting on a body in motion must be equal to its time rate of change of momentum. Another way of stating Newton's second law is that the impulse—that is, the product of the force multiplied by the time over which it acts on a body—equals the change of momentum of the body.
With that understanding of Momentum we turn to the Physicist’s explanation which follows – read carefully.
While light does indeed have no rest mass, it has momentum. It also has a relativistic mass, but this is concept is rather outdated. The term mass in modern terminology 'mass' refers to the invariant mass, which is zero for photons. This invariant mass is defined by
m = sqrt(E^2/c^4 - p^2/c^2)
where E is energy, c the speed of light, and p the momentum. In the case of light, p = E/c, so the mass is zero. But you already know that. The important thing is that light has a non-zero momentum despite having zero mass.
In an atom, there are electrons orbiting a nucleus in discrete energy levels. This just means that there are only certain distances from the nucleus an electron can be. When an electron becomes excited due to something transferring energy to it, the electron goes to a higher energy level, where it will stay there for an extremely short time. When the electron falls back to its original energy level, it emits a photon, and sometimes the photon is in the visible range of the spectrum. If you search for "Bohr atom" or "spectra" online, you should find some nice diagrams that illustrate this.
As for a light bulb, well, that's filled with an inert gas, usually argon. The bulb also contains a (usually) tungsten wire that carries the electric current. In a solid conductor, the current is generated by the movement of free electrons through the wire. The electrons bump into atoms along their way, and excite the bound electrons, causing them to go to a higher energy level. When the electrons return to their ground state, a photon is emitted. Metals tend to emit in the infa-red, which is invisible to humans. However, if heated to a high enough temperature, the metal will emit in the visible range of the EM spectrum.
This explanation seems very glib to me and smacks of the usual scientific game of naming things without actually understanding them. The fundamental problem here – in fact there are several fundamental problems. Consider that light has no mass at rest – because light is (presumably) never at rest. However, light does in fact have mass and this has been demonstrated (Einstein) because light bends when passed through a strong gravitational field. If a “photon” is emitted when an electron takes on energy that moves it to a higher shell and then returns to its natural state it gives up a photon – the photon has energy but no mass – except that it does have mass. In fact the electron has mass, better still the universe is essentially all energy and that energy has mass. This leaves with these questions:
• If the electron takes on energy and changes its state why doesn’t it take on Mass?
• If the electron gives up a photon when returning to its natural state where does the photon’s mass come from?
• If the electron never took on any mass when moving to the higher state and never lost any mass when returning and the energy level remained the same throughout then where did the photon’s mass come from? Why doesn’t the law of conservation of energy apply?
• If the free electron bumps into bound electrons why isn’t there any loss or gain of energy?
It seems to me that when two objects collide there is an exchange of kinetic energy but with electrons this doesn’t seem to apply – why? If that exchange is the photon and all it receives is energy then that energy has mass – but where did it come from since the electrons neither gained nor lost mass.
Obviously I am not a physicist and my questions might (probably do) parade my ignorance, but this whole explanation of the mass of a photon doesn’t ring true. I think – intuitively I admit – that photons have mass and that light can be captured and weapon-ized (Star Trek’s Photon Torpedoes). I think this is an illustration of how science is structured to fit the thinking of the scientists without any real explanation of what or why.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)