Slashdot Mirror
Fundamental Constant Possibly Inconsistent
dylanduck writes "Cosmologists have begun thinking that yet another fundamental constant of nature is, er, not constant. The constant in question is the ratio of a proton's mass to that of an electron. It governs the strong nuclear force but there's no explanation for why that ratio should be constant. If true it would provide support for string theory, which predicts extra spatial dimensions." From the article: "Researchers at the Free University in Amsterdam in the Netherlands and the European Southern Observatory in Chile discovered the variation in mu. They did it by comparing the spectrum of molecular hydrogen gas in the laboratory to what it was in quasars 12 billion light years away. The spectrum depends on the relative masses of protons and electrons in the molecule."
...that God is a woman.
Haven't I heard that one before?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089869/
Farnsworth: These are the dark matter engine I invented. They allow my starship to travel between galaxies in mere hours.
Cubert: That's impossible. You can't go faster than the speed of light.
Farnsworth: Of course not. That's why scientists increased the speed of light in 2208.
...isn't constant, either. Perhaps we can rename them "fundamental variables."
This tagline is copyrighted material. Please send $10 for an affordable replacement.
...if the ratio is changing, doesn't that mean that either electrons or protons (probably both) have changed mass?
How the hell does that work?
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
This is actually true, I do know the first 100 digits by heart.
Hmm, wasn't one of the arguments for intelligent design that the fundamental constants had to be "just right" for the universe to exist? If the shifts of other dimensions causes shifts in our universal constants...another nail in the necessity-of-God argument's coffin?
String theory makes my head hurt.
In accordance with E.O. 12958, this post is marked Unclassified.
It's interesting that they think the ratio effects the strong force. Electrons don't see the strong force, so I'm not sure that this is true - anyone know any better?
The result is accurate to 3.5 sigma - so (possibly) good to about 95 %. Based on a new model of H2 molecule, not sure how well verified it is. I suspect any fool could make any non-standard model measurement fit with string theory so I wouldn't read too much into that.
Also I would like to know little more about the error analysis here. A claim like 0.002% should be carefully checked to make sure about the measurement limitations etc.
Readers are directed to another good article (not flooded with scientific jargon).
Usually they compare it with other lines in the Hydrogen spectrum. I can't get to the details of the paper, but I suspect that they are comparing the redshift of two different lines and checking that they are the same. If they are different something weird is going on.
Pi = 3.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Historically speaking, there have been many claims in the past about various fundamental constants varying with time, and pretty much all of them have eventually not been corroborated by independent experimental groups. So take this with a large grain of salt.
Also, with regard to string theory... well, string theory is more or less compatible with practically any scenario you can think of, because it's so flexible (to phrase it charitably). Any "new physics" can generally be claimed to "support" some string-inspired model. This does not in itself constitute strong evidence for string theory (since you can cook up specific non-string models too).
Here is a link to one string theorist's (opinionated) blog regarding this issue. He notes that this ratio being constant is also consistent with string theory (and is what he believes is likely to be true).
Your part of the universe will no longer be able to sustain life.
Bummer.
A witty
Since when did Slashdot start posting substantive stories? What are they, trading places with Ars these days?
We're fucked!
Why can't other constants, like say pi, be variable as well? Allow pi to vary, and you have the warping of space. How is that so strange? What assume constants are constant? (I really am curious, not trolling.)
This doesn't suprise me. We are the variable, trying to fit into the constants of the universe. This is why it's so hard to find "constants"...
Are their instruments more precise than that? But, I found mass as an paradox when I look at it in Quantum Mechanics. We still use it in the Hamiltonian but we also rely on the electron as a dimensionless wave disturbance. Also, on a macroscopic level, we measure mass relative to other in Earth's gravity, but in Quantum Mechanics we don't factor it in because it is so small. How do we really know what the mass of the electron is. We need a more fundamental definition of what mass is before we can rely on mass ratios like mu.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Didn't they talk about Grue and Bleen in your course? That explains it at least as well as varying fundemental constants.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Didn't the other not-so-constant constant have something to do with light? If so the light from the quasar be affected by this?
By reading this, you have given me brief control of your mind.
Whoa, talk about a vague summary title.
I mean, what happens when you read "Fundamental Constant Possibly Inconsistent" while the big Pi icon is in plain sight right next to it?
*shudder*
You can't fight that argument with any type of logic. These transient "Arguments" disapear and they make up others. The arguments do not have to withstand any scrutany and just have to sound good to "Believers".
The concept of "Faith" was a magnificant and powerful creation--a tool that can allow a few people to control millions--and I'd like to meet the amazingly talented P/R man who figured out how to tag such a horrid, evil concept as "Good".
Question Everything.
and says ....
"I think I have lost an electron!"
Another atom asks..
"Are you sure?"
The atom says
"I'm positive!"
I'll be here all week, enjoy the veal.....
is change.
*DrugCheese rants*
I prefer the engineers' version: E=mc^2 +/- 3dB
Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
-kfg
Constants aren't, variables won't.
...about contestant's incontinence? Why would I want to know about that? That's disgusting. We should be talking about more impor....
Oh.
Never mind.
Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
For those interested in the actual paper (Phys. Rev. Lett. 96), the PDF is available on the researcher's publications page:
http://www.nat.vu.nl/~wimu/PUBS.html
Constant: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
No, not that the constant might not be constant. What's mind-blowing is that an article posted by Zonk might actually be more than mere tripe... possibly even worth reading! Man, maybe the universe *IS* just that screwed-up!
All your sig are belong to us.
To be completely correct, we can never be completely sure of anything that is inferred a posteriori - after observation. However, there is a priori knowledge, which is always completely correct. However, it is also reather useless, as it involves things like "A bachelor is single."
The solution to it has always been simple: assume that the number of correct observations with no counter observations indicates the likelyhood of something being "always". Then run with it. It's really only a problem in philosophy, not science.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
The basic problem of (current view of) science is that it is, definition, based on empiricism and experimentation.
Intution comes always second to both.
Problem with empricism is that we cannot ever be sure. Just because, we observed it to be true doesnt mean that it is *always* true.
But, one would guess, by the astounding success of humanity, that our theories is all quite near to the truth.
Gut *always near*, never sure.
May be, since we have amassed enough data, we should now go back to Aristotles view with Occam's Razor as a guiding stick.
Already, I see a definite direction change towards it - String theory et al.
rajmohan_h@yahoo.com
Another point, one has to be put a lot of faith in other theories associated with a measurement/observation. Say, a distant galaxy is being looked at. I might be using some IR imaging satellite; I have to trust in the theories that developed it and the process that converted it's sensors into human readable data. This is especially true when we are talking about such subtle changes.
Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story
They have legal shrooms there too, you know. I'd say that's more likely.
The molecular hydrogen spectrum is composed from different effects: The electronic states, for which the proton mass is almost negligible (because it's about the electron movement, and the protons are just so much heavier; just like you can neglect the movement of the sun when looking at planetary orbits), and the rotational and vibrational states, which depend strongly on the proton mass (because it's about the movement of the protons themselves). So any change in the ratio of electron and proton mass will show up in the ratio of energy differences between electronic and rotational/vibrational states. OTOH, the red shift due to the quasar speed just gives all observed energies a constant factor, without changing the ratio of energy differences (because that common factor will just cancel out).
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
A more serious article was published about a year ago on similar changes in constants.
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
I thought this was also called the anthropic principle: intelligence and advanced carbon-water life might not be possible with constants much different than we are. Some say this implies the teleology (goal-directed universe) of intelligent design.
You definitely know what you're talking about, but you didn't read - or probably the summary was misphrased. "there's no explanation for why that ratio should be constant. If true it would provide support for string theory": in other words, if the constant is actually constant, then string theory's cool. If it's not, then we might have problems.
Of course string theory is cnsistant with a constant mu. Any theory must be consistant with current observations. The point here is that conventional QM theory is inconsistant with a variable mu while string theory might be. This lends weight to accepting string theory as a more accurate discription of reality as it more correctly explains this observed phonominia.
JFMILLER
Strive to make your client happy, not necessarly give them what they ask for
Well, it'd be an example of a piece of experimental evidence in a field where basically you can't test anything because of the lack of experimental evidence. If that mass ratio varies, then this also means we can measure how it varies, and each theory can make a prediction and... I suspect they bring up string theory because thats the one everyone knows, not because this particular piece of evidence gives support to string theory only. But on the other hand, I can't really say off the top of my head which of the successor theories predicts that the masses of composite particles can have a time dependence (which would amount to either the strength of the strong force or electromagnetic force having a time dependence, or the quark and/or electron self-masses have a time dependence). If all of them do, and can't actually predict how it would vary, then yeah this isn't so useful.
But if its true its still pretty neat and its like water in the desert for the field of post-QM/GR theories.
And they said that the ability to change the values of constants at run-time was a bug. Ha! Take that, you quiche eaters.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Listen you insensitve clod - that IS the point - they weren't always this dense - the density constant changed and now they are more dense :-(
But a change in the ratio of their masses might shed some light on exactly what mass is to begin with. Yes, it's the ability to curve space, and also the resistance to being accelerated. But never mind the p/e ratio being fixed, no one really understands why the individual values are what they are to begin with.
For example, something that always gets me is the muon. Identical to the electron in virtually every way (charge, apparent point-like non-structure, lepton) except is has a mass roughly 207 times as great. Why? What does it have 207 times more of than the electron does to make it 207 times more efficient at curving space? What kind of goo is there that makes it 207 times more resistant to acceleration? And if it's truly a fundamental particle, as we suspect for leptons, why 207-point-something?
It nags at me.
Remember when the force of gravity was a constant?
Well for simple calculations about things on the earth's surface it still is, but as soon as you widen your perspective a little bit you have to start reworking where that number comes from. I don't see how this is much different than that. They look a little further and realize another 'constant' can also vary based on some principle they will hopefully figure out later with more observation.
"Researchers at the Free University in Amsterdam in the Netherlands"
Constants aren't constants? What are these guys smoking?
"There are no facts, only interpretations." --Friedrich Nietzsche.
To me it sounds like these values aren't actually constants but more like global variables. No matter where you are, at any one time the value is the same. So it is constant with respect to position, motion, etc. However, across time the value can change... but it will change universally so that it remains "constant" (in the sense that I mentioned before hand).
Of course this is unfortunate because this means any sufficiently sophisticated simulator will require global variables to run. Dijkstra will be aghast when in the future it is discovered that the universe requires "goto"s too!
Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
It's obvious you know so little about Relativity that you have no idea how ignorant you are. Velocities don't add by simple arithmatic at relativistic speeds; they add in such a way that the total never exceeds c. Thus, two photons, each travelling at c in opposite directions have a relative velocity of c, no matter how counter-intuitive it seems.
In my opinion, the fact that they measured a difference confirms my suspicion that they will not necessarily be the same.
Your ignorant opinion is wrong. As red shift is a function of velocity, all the lines in a hydrogen atom's spectrum will be shifted by exactly the same ammount. I realize this is Slashdot, but try to learn something about the subject before you post.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
If anything, it has only implemented arrays of char.
I question your logic on that one.
This is actually true, I do know the first 100 digits by heart.
Out of curiosity, are you an excellent driver?
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Well of course, that goes without saying...
Doesn't it?
once again
http://www.mininova.org/tor/130051
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
You know, every time we have one of these threads, someone always posts something like the above.
And I'm never sure if he's right, or having us on -- you know, like telling me my fleezle needs to be defrobulated or something.
I mean, it sounds cool and all, but it's all just so much gibbersih to a layperson.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Actually, the complementary variables are position and momentum, and energy and time. If you want to get really technical, you can throw in the quantum mechanical spins as well.
No, it's amazingly simple math.
Every frequency is scaled with a common factor f, which does not depend on the frequency. This is true both for the relativistic Doppler effect and the non-relativistic (medium-relative) Doppler effect (Ok, the cosmological red shift isn't exactly a Doppler effect, but it's a common factor nevertheless).
The frequency of the emitted light is, according to quantum mechanics, given by the difference of the energy levels; that is, if you compare the ratio of the differences of the energy levels, what you actually do is to compare the ratio of frequencies.
Thus if the measured light frequencies are nu1 and nu2, the red shift changes the ratio nu1/nu2 to (f*nu1)/(f*nu2). Thus the red shift cancels out.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
First of all, to stay a little bit on topic, the theoretically observed change in mu is extremely small. Physicists don't know why mu should be about 1836 instead of about 1836.5 or 3 or 11,296,428. My understanding is (and I am not an expert on this), that really small change in mu like we're talking about here wouldn't significantly affect the universe and it would still look largely like it does, but somewhat small change in mu, like an order of magnitude would, a lot. This bugs physicists because they don't know why it is what it is. Why do we have the universe we have instead of something drastically different like one that collapsed or blew apart 10 minutes after the Big Bang? The only answer they can offer is the anthropic principle: It is the way it is because if it weren't, we wouldn't be here to notice.
The existence of God does not hinge on the constancy of mu. This doesn't even disprove intelligent design, which is as bad from a theological perspective as it is from a scientific perspective, being vain in both schools. Several prominent Catholic theologians have stated as much. The perplexing question of why fundamental particles are the way they are and therefore allow us to exist does not constitute a proof of God's existence, but they are rather suggestive.
For the record, I think a brief discussion of creation concepts would be appropriate in social studies (as part of a survey of religions) or in philosophy classes (the study of being) in public schools, but not in science. I want to point out that if God created the phenomena which allows and upon which we base our science, it's unlikely that we would be able to prove or disprove His existence directly through science.
I wasn't going to reply, but it seemed worthwhile to Question this statement. Who is controlled here? The billions of faithful who find meaning in life? In what way are we controlled? By adherence to principles that are conducive to the betterment of mankind like "love your neighbor as yourself" and "Thou shalt not kill?" What is the gain for these scheming, evil leaders and their P/R man? You don't exactly see a lot of priests pimping it up with 22" rims on their Lincolns and an escort on each arm. Celibacy, the difficulties of working with a faith-community, itchy robes, and a badly off-key choir...now there's a good reason to cook up a religion. I'm willing to guarantee you the overwhelming majority of religious leaders really do believe in the faith they profess. Yes there is a large degree of misdirection and a few unscrupulous groups that are nothing more than pyramid schemes or printing companies, but the basic precepts of most religions out there are founded, promoted, and executed with good intent.
arctan(1/F2n)= arctan(1/F2n + 1)+ arctan(1/F2n + 2)
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Comment removed based on user account deletion
When I started graduate school in physics, the proton to electron mass ratio was 6*pi^5, to within the experimental error. By the time I left, they had refined the ratio and 6*pi^5 was no longer within the experimental error. I had not checked recently.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
All mine ever talks about is how hot/cold/rainy it is. :)
Let us check:
First trying Universal:
There is proton/electron mass ratio.
Let us try to look for the dime not under the street lamp but where it belongs: in the gutter (
Atomic and nuclear constants): here it is, among 151 constants in total.
C'mon. 151 fundamental constants only in atomic-nuclear section?
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Many things have been held to be true, that have since been proven false. That doesn't mean that the time spent on those theories and ideas was pointless or useless... if you can see it all as an evolving body of work that generally moves towards a more accurate understanding of the way things work.
In spite of my rather obvious attempt at a troll, I do agree. I just wish your ideas were more prevelent.
Find coupons in Greeley
> String theory is fully compatible with the idea that the constants in nature are actually constant.
...you're taking this to mean...
...which does not follow. It's the ol' "if A implies B then B implies A" error.
It's also, presumably, compatible with the idea that the constants in nature are not constant. If that's the case, then non-constant constants provides trouble for some other theories but not for string theory, making it more likely that string theory is correct.
Basically, you're making an incorrect logical argument. The article is saying...
if (non-const) then (string theory)
if (string theory) then (non-const)
/* To me, this is almost as bad as the stupid myth that two photons cannot pass each other at relative velocity greater than C. */
Actually, that's not a myth.
Here's the q&d explanation: Each photon is travelling at c.
In the frame of reference of photon a, photon b would be at rest
In the frame of reference of photon b, photon a would be at rest
If there were a clock on each of the photons (remember, q&d)... The clock on photon b would appear stopped to any observer on photon a, and vice verce. Thus, at relativistic speeds, the time of the other photon is slowed to the point of stoppage. This is the effect that allows particles with half-lives in the nano-seconds to plummet all the way through our atmosphere and be detected at the ground. I believe the project to which I am referring is called "project cangaroo", but that might only be where the detectors are located.
In any case, it's not a myth, no matter how insane it sounds. The time dilation effect cancels out the increased velocity.
A Haiku: my language choices/assembler pascal lisp c/old school programmer
Oh, ok. Sorry.
I'm wondering the same thing myself.
/seem/ constant because they change so slowly?
Maybe, in fact, the laws of physics are in a state of flux, and, perhaps, have been since the beginning of time. Perhaps the change was rapid in the first billionths of a second of the birth of the universe, and since then the rate of change has been growing slower and slower as the universe expands?
Perhaps the things we have assumed are constant merely
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
I'm not motivated enough to actually read the article yet, but...
One explanation for the inconsistency is special relativity. As moving particles approach the speed of light, their mass increases. It's an exponential process, so the closer you get to the speed of light, the more mass increase you get for an incremental velocity increase. For atoms at rest, the protons are effectively stationary, but the electrons are actually moving pretty fast (the difference between an electron's rest mass and it's mass when in an orbital of an atom is just barely significant). Since the extra velocity from a quasar is just added to the rest velocity (I think), protons and electrons should gain slightly different amounts of mass.
Does anybody disagree? Did anybody even follow what I just said?
Have you ever wondered How to Take Over
I see no connection between this and String theory. And speking of said theory, could someone enlighten me as to what use it has had so far? I have an layman's/engineer's interest in theoretical physics, and I have yet to see a clear summary of how the theory agrees/disagrees with QM and relativity, and whether it is at least capable of duplicating current results. P.S. Please, something beyond the "strings vibrate in N dimensions".
and Joshu said MU!
String theory is fully compatible with the idea that the constants in nature are actually constant.
I suppose that depends on which version of string theory you're using. There are quite a few of them.
Have you ever wondered How to Take Over
PLEASE IGNORE!!! The last post was a stupid joke from a friend sent from my laptop. URGH!!! Why did I forget to lock my computer?!
If there were true constants in nature, wouldn't there be true identical items in existance? How many truly identical items have you ever come across? It is understood that outside factors cause variations in the development of items in nature. I can't measure the submicroscopics of gasses 12 billion light years away. They didn't teach me that in college. I think that there is a lot of assumption based on theory here that injects a exponential margin for chaotic error. It has already been proven that math does not translate to the real world. To wax philosophical, when do you ever have 2 quarks? The very idea that there are 2 different quarks establishes them with enough difference to make them unique. Therefore, they are different. Hell, the thoughts that I just had in my head changed some part of my brain chemistry while writing this little pointless reply, nothing stays the same and nothing was ever how you thought it was a millisecond before or after you decided it was as it was. Phase space is a dance, dimensions are a dream, fact is opinion based on acceptance and I am stuck in the middle. Those who desire to find scientific explanation for chaos are attempting to murder it.
At the "Annual Big Science Thingy"
Scientists (in white lab coats) talking
Prof Frink: Uh, excuse me. I mean could I have your atten...would everybody please...
Talking continues
Prof Frink: It's time to get this...oh gliben. PI IS EXACTLY 3!
*Stunned silence*
Prof Frink: I'm sorry I had to resort to this.
Also reminds me how my calculus professor used to joke, "What do you mean pi is irrational? It's the ratio of C to D."
We're fucked!
...
PROFIT!
Fundamental constants are constant only when e=mc^x where is 2. BUT, if fundamental constants aren't always constant than e=mc^x where x would be 15. Staggeringly enough cosmotologists are quite constantly requiring several levels of education in the physics demographic where the ratio of a proton's mass to that of an electron. Although electrons are relative to space/time, they have no meaning whatsoever within this post. The ratio of a persons mass to that of an electoral's is quite overwlemingly staggeringly different when compared to that of the average single white godfearing spiderfearing arachnophobe. Although Spiders are relatively small, they are enormously titanic relative to atoms and those minature beings called protons, neutrons and electroscopes.
"What happend to just paying for a product without being constantly nibbled to death by Credit Card Ducks?"
The first part of your post is good...but the second one about faith leaves a lot to be desired.
The billions of faithful who find meaning in life?
Actually no one finds meaning in life from religion...because religion dictates that this life is just a test for the afterlife. People usually find meaning in life when they get rid of religions, i.e superstitions, witchcraft and the like.
In what way are we controlled?
Religion makes people pathetic command receptors. They await like sheep for an order from their master.
If people were not controlled by religion, no one would be able to start a war "in the name of God".
If people were not controlled by religion, we would not have billions of people starving while the government officials live a luxurious life.
If people were not controlled by religion, they would listen to the calls of nature and be much more free in making love. It is sad to see young people being reluctant to open themselves to the pleasures of their body just because someone told them it is a sin...and love is liberating, and only with true love one can be emotional enough to love him/herself and the world around her.
By adherence to principles that are conducive to the betterment of mankind like "love your neighbor as yourself" and "Thou shalt not kill?"
But these principles work only because people fear hell. Take away the fear of hell, and then you will see that under the hood, people are still savages. It would be much better if people really understood and embrace those principles because they wanted to, not because they fear punishment if they do not.
What is the gain for these scheming, evil leaders and their P/R man?
The gain is the majority of people are sheep that happily accept to live a shitty life, while they enjoy all the goods this planet has to offer, and then more.
You don't exactly see a lot of priests pimping it up with 22" rims on their Lincolns and an escort on each arm.
What these people do, they do it in private. Most rich people live daily with cocaine, drug and sex orgies, they are pedophiles and perverts. Especially the top officials of religions, together with politicians and other groups of people. How many cases of child abuse by Catholics would you want to be persuaded?
Of course the Pope and other church's leaders are actually going around in Lincolns!
Celibacy, the difficulties of working with a faith-community, itchy robes, and a badly off-key choir...now there's a good reason to cook up a religion.
The lower rank priests are the heros of our society...but these people would be good even if religions did not exist.
I'm willing to guarantee you the overwhelming majority of religious leaders really do believe in the faith they profess.
Judging from what they have done in the past (conspired with Hitler, for example), I really have to say you do not have a clue.
Can these guys really be that good and sure of their measurements? Spectrum from that far away can be measured to one part in 50,000 with exactitude? If so, that is amazing stuff, and of course I'm all for multiple realities! It is a little bit of a letdown, though, to read "fundamental constant changes!" and then find the chance is .002% over 12 billion years. "Oh no! A proton isn't 1836 times as heavy as an electron, it's really 1836.03672 times as heavy! Aaaiieeeee! God help us all!"
best.....nz.....movie.....ever
But not very popular. Maybe Peter Jackson could be pursuaded to remake it.
The book was pretty good in a academic kind of way. Not really SF like the film was.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
I wasn't going to reply, but it seemed worthwhile to Question this statement. Who is controlled here?
Who is being controlled by faith??? Are you seriously asking?
Okay, Let's see...
Terrorists seeking virgins in the afterlife.
Christians voting for Bush.
Christians bombing abortion clinics and/or murdering abortion doctors.
Any religious followers donating to these filthy-rich preachers.
Catholics agreeing to avoid birth control.
Catholic priests avoiding sex (added by the church so they wouldn't leave churches they had built to their heirs, a common problem a while ago)
The "Holy Wars"
The Spanish Inquisition
Government abuses (Have faith in your government)
I know you think I'm being broad, but Faith is a very broad concept. If you accept what someone else tells you without questioning it, you are leaving yourself open to all the above.
Faith is an EVIL idea, it's simply a way of hiding what you are doing behind a shroud. It is necessary in religion because there is nothing going on behind the shroud--there is no "Real World" proof of anything, so they say "Have faith" in order to validate any of it.
Letting a concept like Faith into your life also lets in all those other examples because people stop challenging things they are fed. For instance: the bible has a million contradictions, some extremely obvious, some a little more subtle. Faith requires that there are no contradictions. Every time you force these contradictions to "Work" in your mind, you are breaking your brain a little, making it easier for external forces to manipulate it. It's a long process, but it's going on en mass across the world.
Oh, and I'm also a little beyond beliving the whole "It's harmless because he only preaches don't hurt thy neighbor", this Bible is full of horrible stuff, like God telling "His People" to murder "the littl ones of every city" of his enemy.
If you ARE going to believe as a Christian, at least suck it up and face the fact that this is one nasty fellow you're following. Don't let them tell you to take on "faith" that he's all about goodness and light. This god asked for burnt offerings and told you to stone to death your newly married daughter for the crime of not being a virgin.
And don't give me that BS about "Christ put in a good word for us and fixed it" because these things are exactly what god wanted at one point, so that IS what god wants (or are you saying he was just cranky and grew out of it? He decided that the things he asked for were not such a good idea after all? AN OMNISCENT BEING DOESN'T CHANGE HIS OPINION BECAUSE HE KNEW ABOUT FUTURE FACTORS ALL ALONG!)
How the hell did they get that kind of accuracy out of quasars? Incidentally, I wouldn't consider the ratio of the masses of two particles (one of which is a composite) as a fundamental constant, not like the speed of light or the fine structure constant.
1. x
2. y
3. z
4. profit!
In order to form an immaculate member of a flock of sheep one must, above all, be a sheep.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
A world without religion.
A world where lazy people still believe whatever tells them.
A world where leaders can still start a war arbitrarily, citing security or nationalism.
A world where people still starve while some are still hungry.
A world where people still feel restricted in their actions over concern for what society thinks.
Hello new world, same as the old world....
Your problem is not with religion.
Your problem is with hypocracy, laziness, greed and many other evils.
Religion by itself is neither good nor evil.
What is the gain for these scheming, evil leaders and their P/R man?
Power. Power is a means to an end... and it is the end itself. *shrug*
strike
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
...what that extra knob on my TV set did.
Have gnu, will travel.
Math has as much to do with science as philosophy does with theology. In both math and philosophy, one can define certain concepts and derive truths from them. However, since you are defining the concepts, you can't test whether they are true...they ARE true because they are defined that way. If you say 8+9 is 17, it's only true because you define the underlying concepts such that they are always true. However, if someone else is counting in hexidecimal, they'd say you are wrong-but they are defining the concepts diferently.
The real world is more messy than that. That's what this article was about-just when a group of people think they have part of the universe figured out, someone else comes up with a different measurement. Mathematicians never have that problem-everything can ultimately made black and white by defining and deriving. As long as someone else uses the same definitions in the realm of math, they will get the same answer as everyone else.
See, I look at genuine miracles as chances to explore in greater depth how the universe works.
That's what I'm suggesting you do-find a miracle that has had someone with a scientific background rule out the obvious stuff that remains inexplicable by accepted scientific theories. It seems to me that most "scientists" do one of two things when encountering something they can't explain: 1) ignore it and try not to think about it, usually alluding to some undiscovered principle at work; or 2) ridicule ideas outside the mainstream of science to draw attention away from problems with applying conventional wisdom There is of course the "non-scientific" theory-a non-human intelligence or other supernatural effect may be involved.
Sometimes people in math or the hard sciences forget about human intelligence: What is intelligence? How did it come into being? How is it that I think and have feelings if all that I am is a pile of chemical reactions? Why is it so hard to apply Occam's razor to these questions?
Does it really make sense to claim there is no possiblity of an intelligence having a hand in human development when humans have had a hand in the development of other organisms (genetic engineering)? What about artifical intelligence (remember, artificial means "made by man")? If our intelligence is being applied to creating new lifeforms, how much sense does it make to rule out the possibility that intelligence may have had a hand in creating other life forms?
What about the physical universe? Many people have created their own universe: everything from comic books to science fiction, movies and now computer games, human intelligence has created domains where universal rules apply and result in complex behavior. Computer games are one of my favorite examples; bots are programmed to follow certain rules in interacting with a well-ordered environment with a bit of randomness sometimes thrown in. However, human players can influence the bots environent in large and small ways. Is there any way that you can really rule out that you are not just a bot in someone else's video game?
"Absurd!", one might say. I say, prove that you are not. If the universe does in fact have laws and everything that happens is a result of those laws, how is that different than a computer program? The computer program and the computer it runs on is designed by intelligence.
"But the universe is too big, too complex to run on a computer!" So was computational fluid dynamics a few decades ago. Now scientists have even been able to model coliding black holes and molecular interactions-stuff of science _fiction_ 30 years ago, but reality today. So why insist on rulling out a hypothesis that the same thing happens on a much larger scale?
A parting question: if God doesn't exist, why do our suroundings sometimes respond to intelligence when we can't even explain how intelligence exists in the first place?
science is a religion
Because protons contain moving parts, its mass changes all the time.
It's true, I had to show her where it was.
Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
I think most of the fanatical arguments on both sides come from people who have been burned by the other side.
The most vocal arguments on both sides, however, come from a very few people trying to play power games with the philosophies they claim are implicit in their side.
I thinkk it's the power mongers that the rest of the fanatics are trying to stop.
Well, there is definitely an evil version of faith and an evil version of good that has been invented by someone evil.
More than likely more than one of each. But we can blame the devil for starting it all be pretending to be God instend of being just god like the rest of us.
The fake demigods are the ones who tell you not to question what they tell you, only what the other guy says.
This result is likely to be proven wrong in the future.
ut the basic precepts of most religions out there are founded, promoted, and executed with good intent. I belive so too. Which is what makes these groups the most destructive force ever created. Yes, they often do a lot of good. But misguided good intentions are far more destructive than intentionally destructive actions. These groups, fueled by good intentions, sometimes (indirectly) push their faith on others. I doubt even the innocent religious charities do not work without an angle. And I find it quite funny that churches will have multi-million dollar fundraisers to build a new building when the old one seems to serve its purpose and in the same mass, have a separate collection for the disadvantaged.
I remember listening to some guy on NPR talking about the various differences between religions (he had studied as many as he could "scientifically").
One of the interesting comments that he made is that most of the "unorganized" pagan religions didn't really have the concept of "faith" - you either believed the stuff, or you didn't, or you believed variations or something else, but whatever interpretation you made of it was made completely by yourself in relation to how you experienced your life.
"Faith" is a concept that was almost exclusively introduced by "organized" religion, whenever you had some sort of elite/authority who wanted the general populace to follow a set of rules without having to police them all the time (especially since then you would have to police the police, etc).
By introducing Faith as a required part of any religion, people feel _guilty_ when they break your rules, and they get angry when they see other people breaking the rules (same reaction as when you see someone breaking the rules in a game). As a spiritual leader, you get the bonus of having people enforce rules on themselves, and on others, without you having to lift a finger.
Anyway, one of his main points was that every organized major religion in the world ended up adding "Faith" as one of their key tenets when each religion evolved to the point where they had some kind of elite who wanted to influence the followers of that religion.
Err, no, they aren't. Assume there are many universes that differ in fundamental constants. Or assume that there is only one universe, but fundamental constants can change locally.
THIS IS YOUR REBUTTAL?!?!!! Assume this, maybe that?
Give me a freaking break.
The perplexing question of why fundamental particles are the way they are and therefore allow us to exist does not constitute a proof of God's existence, but they are rather suggestive.
Evidence that we're not here by accident can only mean that there is some natural physical need for us to be here... without making an unfounded leap of faith.
*geez*
Yes there is a large degree of misdirection and a few unscrupulous groups that are nothing more than pyramid schemes or printing companies, but the basic precepts of most religions out there are founded, promoted, and executed with good intent.
Explain the crusades, inquisitions, the protestant vs Catholic civil wars throughout history.
Not the mention the whole sale slaughter of the indiginous people's throughout history.
Yeah... They have good intentions, but they don't care if it means if they have to pave the road to hell in the souls of the saved.
The reason why they do this is not for money or power... But because they want to be right.
They are afraid to be wrong. So the world must agree with them.
(This doesn't apply to just Christians, but to any religion or ideology that wanted to make everyone believe in their message)
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
And a much better reply would have pointed to some authoritative source or would have stated why one should believe you know what you're talking about. Even as a physicist (who works outside of elementary particle theory) I've never heard of the Virasoro algebra.
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
Comment removed based on user account deletion
As I am so strongly directed to get my facts right, and within this spirit, I should point out a few things. Though even Heisenberg put forth energy-time as well as position-momentum in his original description (as well as angle-action), Pauli noted in 1933 that there isn't any operator that is canoncally conjugate to the Hamiltonian, provided the Hamiltonian is bounded from below (which means they are not complementary variables in the strict sense that I have been taken to task). For what it is worth, Bohr considered them all "complementary quantities."
Now my anonymous critic points out that you derive it from the Schroedinger equation, but that is only one way. Forty-five years ago Ahranov and Bohm summarized this issue very nicely and it has been a topic of study even longer. A good, recent, review paper on this topic can be found by Busch.
As for the issue of the time operator, that is an interesting topic of study as well, and not so cut-and-dried as my combatitive friend would have you to believe. As an example with relation to quantum field theories, one can look at Wang et al.. I would not be a quick as my self-confident friend that there is not a time operator to be found.
Thanks.
That's maybe a little more than was necessary. My point was mostly that Slashdot (like many places) has plenty of people who claim to know about something but actually know little. So, if you do know something, it's good to back up your claims a bit so readers can distinguish signal from noise. I guess in the end it's little different from why we use references in scientific journals.
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yes, there's that and also the fact that it seems like the probability that a comment will be modded up decreased exponentially with a half-life of about 30 minutes after a story is posted. But for each one of the ignorant loud-mouths there are probably a lot of people who are quitely reading your posts and learning from them. And many have probably done what I just did and marked you as a "friend" so they will see your comments in the future.
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
It is interesting how when people put the flame wars aside and start constructing logical arguments, well-thought out religion and science have a lot in common. I say well-thought out because some denominations, such as Catholicism, use logical reasoning to construct their belief structure. At the core of this structure is a set of observations and the belief structure must be internally consistant. Almost 2000 years of some of the finest thinkers in the world has found the Catholic and Orthodox churches in a position such that, their belief structures are quite consistent within itself and with its core tenents, arguably more-so than some branches of main-stream science.
Of course both the realms of science and religion has people that are adherants to ideas with inherent flaws, although sometimes they are merely elaborate belief structures derived (sometimes loosely) from some untestable tenents. But I don't think the value of a whole catagory of thought such as science or religion should be judged based on the ravings of a few fringe individuals or adherents who misapply facts and reason.
One of the main reasons why I am still a Roman Catholic is that I haven't been able to find any cases where, at its heart, there are inherent conflicts within church doctrine. In this regard, the largest distinction between it and main-stream science is not the validity of its reasoning, but the core tenents themselves.
I understand your desire as a reductionist to want everything to be testable; unfortunately, nothing in the physical world really is testable. All the observations we make ultimately rely on ours senses, including those relayed to us by others.
Essentially the belief structure of an atheist who understands and follows science is that they believe the majority of the knowledge they accumulate from their senses, and it all has to fit together. Any new experiences (such as magnetism being introduced to a child) often result in a sense of wonder and curiosity about how it "works".
My argument is that most people of a "rational" religion have the same internalized values. The difference in some regard is to where the reduction stops. In some ways, it boils down to intent. If my son asks me why a program I write performs a given task, there are two ways to answer his question. One is by describing things such as programming, operating systems, computer hardware, electricity, etc. The other is to state my intent, i.e. I wanted the program to do what it does.
Which is the better answer? It depends on whether he cared about what I wanted or if he just wanted to understand the mechanics of it. Could I change the mechanics of it? Sure, and then it would have required him to change his understanding of how the program worked.
Fundamentally, I believe the main difference between religion and science is about whether the question is being asked in a mechanical sense or in an intent sense. Miracles to me are sortof like my son witnessing a change in a program after he already understands what the program does. He can theoretically figure out _how_ the program changed, given the right tools and knowlege, but that would not answer _why_ it changed (something like the changing physical constants that started this discussion).
I could confound my son by temporarily changing the program to produce a change in its output, then changing the program back to its original state; even if he had the right tools to understand how the program worked, he would not be able to explain the deviation in output unless I told him or he witnessed the action. Even so, he would still not know _why_ the program was ch
science is a religion
Sorry about being slow on the uptake, been out of the loop -- job hunt and such.
I know that power-mongers have abused religion throughout human history. They have also abused science. Power-mongers will abuse anything they can. They even try to abuse the human conscience. Unfortunately, they sort-of succeed at that sometimes, which is why governments which fail to recognize and encourage freedom are evil.
However, the existence of snake-oil salesmen and other fakirs aside, conscience does exist, and there is a being/principle that created the universe and still rules it. That being/principle gave humans both freedom and conscience, and told us to question everything in its time.
No, you don't question everything. If you did, you would still be stuck questioning your existence before you got out of bed the last time you got out of bed, and if you got past that you would be questioning the toilet, the sink where you wash your hands, the breakfast you ate or your ability to do without breakfast, etc., questions without end. (Hormones in the feed that went into the chicken that laid the egg on your McMuffin?) Even questioning requires prioritization.
When you say you question everything, you simply mean that the Bible is part of the set of everything you think you need to question. No big deal.
I don't particularly find the Song of Solomon inspiring, myself. (Not because the auther is infatuated, but because the cultural background of sexual domination is praised.)
The Bible is a collection of writings by people who were inspired by their search into truth. They were at peace with their consciences, many having had to pay a terrible price in undoing the layers of social false-common sense that had been taught them while they grew up. It also happens to have been culled by power-mongers and edited to the extent those power-mongers thought they could get away with without causing popular rejection. The amazing reality is that truth survives for people who want to find it there.
The authors' hands being "guided by God", but not forced by Him, may seem a small thing, but small things are aften bigger in the long run.
In this respect, the Bible and other scriptures have something a little beyond what is had in common literature. You can, of course, find truth in common literature as well, but scriptures in general have a bit stronger dose of it.
But if all truth could be contained in one book of scripture, this world would be such a poor world there would be no use in being born in it. Circumscribed, yes. Contained, no. The Bible does a better job of circumscribing truth than many other books of scriptures, but it does not contain all truth, especially not in minute detail.
It does contain such interesting truths as, "... ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." Questioning is not sufficient. You have to do things to understand them, or even to properly question them. But, "... ask, and ye shall receive," is not about asking for material wealth, is it?
The Testament of Judas? Spurious, thought not quite as spurious as the Song of Solomon or as Bel and the Dragon. However, if you read the Bible carefully, more than once through, you were already aware that Judas Iscariot thought he was acting at Jesus' command, and aware of other truths which that book emphasizes, including the necessity of the crucifixion. (Could Judas have betrayed Jesus without afterwards committing suicide? I hope I never have to ask God.)
The thing about questioning everything, is that it is useless to question if you believe there is no truth. But if you believe there is truth, the truth is already your God, in the only meaningful sense of the word, "God".