By Sue Bradley
A letter by George F. Will on January 6, 2005 presumed that modern physics and the Asian tsunami (a disaster of Biblical proportions in our own time, argue against the existence of a loving, omnipotent God. A response by Hank Baughman published on January 9 added that Einstein's findings had been disproven by quantum mechanics, which reveals unpredictability at the elemental level of nature. Einstein doubted these findings shortly before his death, remarking, as Hank Baughman notes, that "God does not play dice." Mr. Baughman concluded that since elemental nature is unordered, it is therefore, "wildly random, chaotic, and thus, vicious" and that we are nature's dice. Therefore, he concludes, quoting Nobel laureat (1979) Theoretical physicist, University of Texas, Austin, Steven Weinberg, the universe is, "overwhelmingly hostile."
The response by Mr. Baughman here is an excellent representation of a synecdoche: seeing the general while missing the specific. It is true that at a submolecular level quantum physics has revealed a fascinating ability to defy understanding. It may appear to be be random and chaotic. To a scientist, this situation represents another delectable voyage into the unknown - another mystery to be explored an demystified. Not, however, a reason to discard hundreds (if not thousands) of years of rigorous scientific thought. The laws of science are fixed. The same equations that explain why a ball rolls downhill on earth explain why stars collapse upon themselves. Chemical elements emit the same spectra of light on distant plants that they emit here. Science, in fact, is meaningless without the ability to depend on the laws of nature being consistent. We would not marvel at the apparent meanderings of quantum particles if the molecular world were not eminently predictable.
The precision of the molecular world, in fact, has led more and more physicists to the conclusion that a single engineer, outside of our time-space continuum, must have had a hand in its design. Science of the last couple of decades has revealed that dozens of variables necessary for life (at the molecular and the submolecular level) appear to have been precisely defined for its development. The Anthropic Principle indicates the universe has been exquisitely tuned for our existence.
A few examples: the strength of the four major forces, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, weak nuclear and gravitational, the mass and energy of the big bang, the temperature of the big bang, the rate of expansion of the universe, the energy of formation of carbon, among dozes of others, with no doubt, more to be defined. Weinberg himself observed that "life as we know it . . . would be impossible if any one of several quantities had different values. One constant does seem to require incredible fine tuning. . . ." The constant that Weinberg described as requiring incredible fine tuning was the energy off the big bang, which if it differed from more than one apart in 10120, would have prevent the formation of a life-sustaining universe.
The Fermilab/University of Chicago astro-physicist Michael Turner calculated that the precision revealed hitting a bullseye one mm in diameter. These findings have convinced many former skeptics - most recently and notably the long time apologist for atheism, Anthony Flew. He announced in December 2004 that the mounting evidence in physics, astronomy and biology for "intelligent design" had convinced him that there must, in fact, have been some supernatural source of our material universe. his epiphany echoes man others among scientists:
"These findings . . . make the idea that God created a universe a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last 100 years." Frederick B. Burnham, Science Historian.
"As we survey all of the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being?" George Green, 18th century mathematician and astronomer.
"When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." Frank Tipler, Professor of Mathematics,Tulane University. LA, author of The Physics of Immortality, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, and the Omega Point Theory.
Robert Jastrow, Astro-physicist, Director of the Mt. Wilson Institute and Observatory, has observed: "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the poser of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
Albert Einstein remarked that "God does not play dice." Why would He? Who would He play with? He would always win. And predicability - even to those of us who do not happen to be an omnipotent creative God, is boring. What Einstein actually meant by his assertion is, that God does not, ultimately, take chances. Mr. Baughman's conclusion however, that men are God's dice and thus the universe in overwhelmingly hostile, as actually perceptive. God did choose to program a little uncertainty into His awesome, majestic, incredible universe by creating man - a spiritual being His own image - and endowing him with free will. The random meanderings of the quantum world are the submolecular mechanism of free will (see The Science of God by Israeli physicist, Gerald Schroeder, Nuclear Physicist, Hebrew University, for further explanation of this.). A man choosing through disobedience to distance himself from all things good, did in fact, create a hostile world.
But even in this God did not really play dice and omniscience prevailed. With the innate goodness of His creation ultimately sullied by mankind's misguided self-interest, God took upon himself the constraints of our spacetime, took within himself the contamination that had been created by our sin, and established a purification procedure through which we can pass into His presence again. so we see not a random, hostile, impersonal universe, but instead a loving, considerate creator who crafted every facet of our universe specifically for us.
George Will, in his column, proposed that Einstein's famous theorem E = mc2 should be revised to Life = BB + paperwork +BC or BF (BB = Big Bang, BF = Big Freeze, and BC = Big Crunch), the latter two being the ways in which the universe is scientifically expected to meet its final tragic fate.
Actually, he should have added BR, the Big Rip, to this selection of catastrophic endings. Robert Caldwell, Associate professor of Physicis and Astronomy at Dartmouth University has observed an apparent ongoing increase in the apparent orate of the ongoing acceleration of the universe, which if confirmed, would indicate that the fabric of space time (which we know is being stretched at an accelerating rate) will eventually rip open, allowing the visible universe (galaxies, stars, etc. around us) to recede at a S that will make them suddenly invisible, shortly before atoms themselves and even nuclei fly apart. The scientists theorize that that point would also mark the end of time itself.
If all of this sounds all to apocalyptic, it should As a matter of fact, it almost seem at the Dartmouth scientist lifted his theories straight from the Book of Revelation, where the apostle John sees the heavenly bodies and the earth flee away from His presence in a "scroll-like" scenario, shortly before the apparent end of time as we know it.
A team of Australian scientists led by theoretical physicist Paul Davies to Sydney's Macquarie University has proposed that the speed of light may not be a constant, a revolutionary idea that could unseat one of the most cherished laws of modern physics -- Einstein's theory of relativity: it is possible that the speed of light has slowed over billions of years.
Considering that a change in the electron charge over time, these studies appear to violate the sacrosanct Second Law of Thermodynamics and their compelling conclusion an explanation recognized over a decade ago by Australian Physicist Barry Setterfield and Mathematician Trevor Norman of Flinders University, which was met by a satiric response in the unapproachable and vaulted scientific community, the very group which for centuries has held the high ground of scientific reverie.
Throughout 1985 -1987 Setterfield and Norman collected field data They were invited by a senior research physicist at Stanford Research Institute (SRI) International to write a Research Report for internal discussion at SRI. Published in the Flinders University publication, Atomic Constants, Light, and Time.
Predicting the existence of an underlying sea of zero-point energy, also referred to as the at every point in the universe, quantum physics. This is is also referred to as the electromagnetic quantum vacuum since it is the lowest state of otherwise empty space. This energy is so enormous that most physicists believe that even though zero-point energy seems to be an inescapable consequence of elementary quantum theory, it cannot be physically real, and so is subtracted away in calculations.
The key properties of the vacuum of free space include electrical permittivity, magnetic permeability, zero-point energy, and intrinsic impedance. If any of these properties change isotopically, then both atomic behavior and the speed of light would vary throughout the universe.
And so just what is the significance of undoubtedly the most startling of all scientific parameters? It causes enormous upheaval in the very mainspring constant of scientific thought: a dictum to revise almost every sector of scientific thought, and an alteration of centuries of pride and 'scientific' achievement which underpins every area of micro and macro universe, essentially pulling the rug out from under the very pinnacle of every area of scientific conclusion, including radioactive decay processes and the revision of radiocarbon dating.
The elaborate models produced are most likely headed the way of the "flat earth" approach, and the errors of Pythagoream theorum, and the entire field of thematic originals and scientific thought reexamined.
And how does this affect our everyday lives?
The implications for this realization are staggering and ponderous: Allan Montgomery applied this data using the Cosecant2 Regression Curve and found that c, the speed of light, could quite possibly have been:
• 10-30% faster: 5 BC - 5 AD
• 2 X faster, 1000 BC (Solomon)
• 4 X faster 1900 BC (Abraham)
• 10 million X faster prior to 3,000 BC
When the process is integrated over the redshift/cDK curve the following approximate figures apply.
1 million years before present (BP) atomically is actually 2826 BC with c about 70,000 times c now.
63 million atomic years BP is an actual date of 3005 BC with c about 615,000 times c now.
230 million atomic years BP is an actual date of 3301 BC with c about 1.1 million times c now.
600 million atomic years BP is an actual date of 3536 BC with c about 2.6 million times c now.
2.5 billion atomic years BP is an actual date of 4136 BC with c about 10.8 million times c now.
4.5 billion atomic years BP is an actual date of 4505 BC with c about 19.6 million times c now.
15 billion atomic years BP is an actual date near 5650 BC with c about 65.3 million times c now.
20 billion atomic years BP is an actual date near 5800 BC with c about 87 million times c now.
Perhaps if Dr. Einstein's theorum is to be modified, it be revised as Life - BB + paperwork (know what the Bible actually says before choosing to dismiss it +BC (The Big Choice). God promises that He will be found by those who honestly seek truth. Use your free will intelligently. Incidentally, God may play dice, he just insures His losses . . . but He seems always willing to split the pot.
For further reading:
Aveni, Anthony, Empires of Time: Calendars, Clocks and Cultures, Basic Books, New NY, 1989.
Campbell, Joseph, The Inner Reaches of Outer Space, Harper and Row, New York, NY, 1986.
Carrigan, Richard A., Jr., and Trower W. Peter, ed. Particles and Forces at the Heart of the Matter, Reading from Scientific American, W.H. Freeman ^ Co., New York, NY 1990.
Cassidy, David C., Uncertainty, The Life and Sciende of Werner Heisenbert, WH Freeman & Co., New York, NY 1992.
Davies, Paul, The Mind of God, Simon ^ Schuster, New York, NY, 1983.
Davies, Paul & Gribbin, John. The Matter, The Myth: Dramatic Discoveries That Challenge Our Understanding of Physical Reality, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY, 1992.
Fritsch, Harold, The Creation of Matter: The Universe from Beginning to End, Basic Books, New York, NY, 1984 (Originally published in German as Vin Urknall zum Zerfall; Die Weltzwischen Anfant and Ende, Piper Verlag, Munich).
Gardner, Martin, The New Ambidextrous Universe, Freeman & co., New York, NY, 1990
Gleick, Hames, Chaos: Making a New Science, Viking, New York, NY, 1987
Hawking, Stephen, A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, New York, NY, 1988
Kaku, Michio, Hyperspace, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1984.
Lerner, Eric J., The Big Bang Never Happened, Random House, New York, NY, 1991.
Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed, translated by M. Friedlander, George Routeledge & Sons, London, 1928.
Missler, Charles. Commentary on Genesis 1, KHouse, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, 2004
Montgomery, Alan. "Is the Velocity of Light Constant in Time?," Published in Galilean Electrodynamics, Vol. 4, no. 5, Sept/Oct 1993
Nachmanides, Commentary on the Torah, ed. C. Chavel, Rav Kook Institute, Jerusalem, 1958.
Nikel, James, Mathematics: Is God Silent? Ross House Books, Vallecito, CA, 1990
Norman, Trevor. "Is the Velocity of Light Constant in Time?," Published in Galilean Electrodynamics, Vol. 4, no. 5, Sept/Oct 1993.
"The Atomic Constants Light and Time," Special Research Report prepared Stanford Research SRI International, Menlo Park, CA., August 1987.
Setterfield, Barry. "Is the Velocity of Light Constant in Time?," Published in Galilean Electrodynamics, Vol. 4, no. 5, Sept/Oct 1993.
"The Atomic Constants Light and Time," Special Research Report prepared Stanford Research SRI International, Menlo Park, CA., August 1987.
revised, March, 2006
Analogous Attributes of Light
• Located at Infinity • No Parallax
• Infinite power • Velocity limit
• Omnipresence • Photos lack locality
• Omniscience • Fundamental Revelatory Mechanism
Velocity of Light
• 17th century: Johannes Kepler, Rene Descartes, et al, believed light was instantaneous (c was infinite).
• 1677: Olaf Roemer measured elapsed time between eclipses of Jupiter with its moons, yielding a finite speed of light.
• 1729: James Bradley confirmed Roemer's work
• Over 300 years, measured 164 times by 16 different methods
1906: JJ Thomson, Nobel Price, 1907 for proving electrons were particles
1937: George PagetThomson, (son of JJ Thomson), Nobel Prize, 1937 for proving electrons were waves
The wave/particle duality is the central paradox in quantum physics.
There is now compelling evidence that quanta only manifest as particles when being observed.
Velocity of c decreasing
• Four of five related atomic properties dependent upon c have demonstrated decrease
• Slowing of atomic clocks relative to orbital clocks
If atomic clocks are correct, orbital speeds-of Mercury, Venus and Mars are increasing
of Red Shift
• Distortion of gravity during an early expansion phase
Time stands still at event horizon.
The Nature of Matter
1. Plasma Entropy
2. Gas Four States
4. Solid Order