Tech Bytes

Here is something to stretch your minds: Imagine you're an engineer who's been in existence for 49 years, and marvels at his sophisticated and seemingly complex invention of let us say...a nano-phone that can be implanted in the pre-frontal cortex and operated by voice command. Now try to wrap your minds around a God who has existed from eternity to eternity and decides that one day (however long that is for a being not bound by time) decides to create a universe, also with moving and interacting parts, such as stars, planets, living creatures, atoms, and whatever exists at the centre of a photon. In other words, until one begins thinking outside the boundaries of the common human perception scientists may never fully understand some of the biggest questions they face today.

Seeing as how the Theory of Relativity is, just that, a theory and not a law of physics, it's just a matter of time before relative theory is modified or replaced with a new idea. Although people of time thought otherwise, Einstein was genious enough to know that he wasn't infallible.

Curious though, relative theory proposes a direct correlation between mass/energy and physical speed. Quantum tunneling seems to 'cheat' relative theory by, in essence, shortening distance. So while its true a quantum particle can get from point A to point B faster than the speed of light would permit, it's seems to be doing so by dramatically altering the distance required to travel there. Yes?

I think God has little place in a scientific debate, Sean.

I, for one, firmly believe that there is absolutely nothing that humanity can not achieve, nothing that the human mind cannot learn to comprehend. There may be concepts that we just can't wrap our minds around at the moment, but given time that will undoubtedly change.

Sean: Scientists may not be able to fully understand, or even begin to understand the tougher questions, but you begin with easier ones and work your way up. Compare what scientists knew thousands of years ago when science was in it's infancy to what scientists of today know. A child today knows more science than a learned man of ages past. Heck, a child today knows more science than when I was a child, and to me that is truly phenomenal and awe-inspiring. Just imagine what humanity will know and achieve in the thousands of years to come.

Claudio: a scientific theory is not an opinion, it's a fact arising to a level of scientific certainty (99.999%?). In scientific lingo, I suppose you could say something is 'just an hypothesis', and mean it is an unproven opinion, or speculation.

Cheers.

Rodney: I never said scientific theory is an opinion, nor do I believe that I impied that it was, but allow me to clarify. A scientific theory is a plausible or scientifically acceptable principle offered to explain an observable fact. It's not something set in stone, but rather is open for modification as our scientific knowledge grows.

One could say it's like trying to explain something without knowing the complete answer.

Thanks for the feedback.

Actually, Garet, in a truly objective scientific debate, God may most definitely have a place. Or, are you saying that you have proven that God does not exist? Interesting. I'm sure Nature would be interested in seeing your scientific proof.

I'll have whatever Sean is having.

Well, when everyone else is traveling past the speed of light, you won't be invited Rodney. :P Just kidding. Frankly, it's waaaay too fast and too mind boggling for me to even go over 200 in our family vehicle. Breaking the light barrier successfully makes me queasy and I'm just sitting in a chair thinking about it. O_O

Scientists have "broken the speed of light" before, as mentioned in the article... they've also achieved "teleportation." Of course, neither of these achievements can really be scaled up to a useful size (we can't teleport humans, we can't send them anywhere at the speed of light, I haven't even found a reliable way to get one out of bed in the morning). In general, after the first headlines get readers excited, we find out that it's been done "in a manner of speaking" which still ends up complying with natural laws. Sure we're getting closer, and the optimist in me likes to remind folks that we once thought the Sound Barrier was inviolate, but I wish journalists would be more responsible about printing this particular headline.

Scott, scientists don't go trying to prove Star Wars happened, or the Lord of the Rings happened. They work with the real world, not old fiction.

Whether or not God has a place in a scientific debate would certainly depend on the faith or open-mindedness of the individual. However, I would expect that any rationally thinking person could not ignore the large "intelligent design" suggestion glaring every scientist in the face; especially in today's age, with new scientific discoveries emerging every year that point towards the existence of an intelligent designer. It baffles me to see that, scientists especially, can be aware of the complex and sophisticated nature of the universe in which we live in and still be convinced that it all happened by accident.

Infact, our ever increasing study of things like physics are also progressvily proving any sort of intelligent design story wrong.

I haven't read anything from a credible scientist that promotes the idea of any sort of god.

I don't understand why science and spirituality need to be at odds with one another. I consider myself to be scientifically-minded so I think its very important to learn the inner workings of everything around us, to learn and understand why things are the way they are. But I also believe in being open to ALL possibilities. If it turns out that what we learn leaves us face to face with God, the Creator, the intelligent designer, whatever...how can that be anything but beneficial to humanity as a whole?

I just don't believe in chalking everything up to intelligent design and leaving it at that, without having learned a thing.

Garet, some of my friends and I would like to have a word with you on discussing the Lord of the Rings. You see, the Bible was written with a different goal than Lord of the Rings. Its intent was not as a religious text; the Bible was intended to be religious.

Therefor, you shouldn't be comparing the two in such a way. There are similarities, yes... but simply dismissing the Bible is becoming harder and harder to do. Just as it is harder to dismiss other religions as well.

In the end, it's best to simply watch with interests as people progress. Who knows? With the expanding intelligence in the area of technology... fiction may very well become reality yet!

You know they made a religion based off a science fiction writer's works?

You completely missed my point if you think I was saying the Lord of the Rings was some sort of religious text.

Claudio writes "Seeing as how the Theory of Relativity is, just that, a theory and not a law of physics,..." ahh, no. Special relativity is a "law of physics". The layperson often refers to it as the "Theory of Relativity" but it doesn't mean it is "just a theory". Not all "laws" are equivalent either. Ohm's Law isn't even true in general! Newton's Laws are "laws" but quantum mechanics and relativity both modify the classical mechanics described imperfectly by Newton's Laws. The Second Law of Thermodynamics...now, that's a law! Let me tell you, from a physicist's point of view, special relativity is on par with the 2nd Law of Thermo, in terms of established certainty. If you ever hear stories (and you do) of scientists or inventors who purportedly find a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermo...you can bet that sooner or later, it will turn out to be wrong. And, the same is true here too. Pretty soon those scientists that supposedly found this violation of special relativity will retract. Mark my words.

Just because it is on a par with the 2nd Law of Thermo, doesnt mean its inviolate. Special Relativity itself states that there is a way around the Speed of Light barrier through the construct of wormholes, and Quantum Theory has its "tunneling." The universe is not so simple that SR would be inviolate. In Newton's times, his laws were thought to be unbreakable. Then, as now, the reason is that humanity had not reached the proper technological level to realize that Newton's Laws were just a subset of something- not wrong, simply complete. One day, when humanity reaches a higher technological level, the same will be said of Relativity. With many aspects of quantum theory superseding relativity, this might already be happening. And not coincidentally, this is because we have technology available today that Einstein could never have dreamed of (like the Large Hadron Collider.) Science, like evolution, is not set in stone, but always evolving. The old stubborn mainstream might not believe this, but, then again, they arent the ones who drive science and society forward, now are they? I fully expect faster than light travel to become a reality within 200 years... too bad neither of us will be around to see who's right... but seeing humanity's track record, Im pretty confident!

Intelligent design eh? Last i heard, no articles supporting this "suggestion" have ever been published in recognized peer reviewed scientific journals, much less the subject of focused scientific research or testing. And its convinient that by "ID" feild leaders' own admission, intelligent causes or agents may not be directly observable...