Regarding:
DNAunion:
>... Should this make us reevaluate, at least to some degree, the statement
>that the same laws of physics apply equally everywhere in the Universe?
I don't think so. If such a re-evaluation would be in order, it would
not be because of this result. Of course this should not be construed to
mean that the currently accepted and understood laws of physics should
be immune to critical scrutiny. Only that these reported effects do not
call conventional physical theory into question.
>Or perhaps the "lesson" is that there might be processes that can actually
>occur, that physics currently says cannot.
This is always a possibility. One can't always think of everything ahead
of time. Not even physicists are omniscient. We know in part and we see
in part.
>Consider in addition the recent
>breaking of the universal speed barrier: it was demonstrated in the last
>several months that light can travel faster through a certain substance than
>it can in a vacuum. Now I have read (well, attempted to read) some of the
>explanations that try to get around the implication that "Einstein's speed
>limit" had actually been broken, but they were over my head (in-depth
>physics). In my *layman's view*, the speed limit was broken (If not, then
>the version of the "universal speed limit" presented to laymen needs to be
>revised).
This effect, although remarkable, was far from anything approaching a
violation of Einstein locality. The 2nd most important principle of
relativity theory is that there exists a speed limit c for causal
influences that happens to have the experimental value of 299792458 m/s.
This speed limit was *not* broached in this or any other experiment that
I am aware of. Just because a broad pulse of EM waves leaves a
metastably cocked interaction cell before another broadly peaked
(stimulus) pulse finishes entering it is not a propagation of a causal
influence faster than c. What triggers the outgoing pulse is the rising
leading edge of the incoming pulse. The full effect is understood via
conventional theory.
>So to wrap this up, to us laymen, a couple "rules" of physics have recently
>been overturned: (1) heat has been shown to able to flow from cold to hot and
>(2) something can travel faster than the speed of light through a vacuum.
Nothing of the kind has happened (i.e. no "rules of physics have been
overturned) in these instances. One need to be savvy enough to
understand that flashy headlines are designed create interest and to sell
ink. Just because an effect that seems on first blush to violate some
principle of physics is given big air-play, that does not mean that a
careful analysis of the situation will not reveal that conventional
physics does not explain the phenomenon--even if the existence of the
novel phenomenon in question is a genuine surprise in that no one had
thought of the possibility before it was first observed. Of course,
there is a first time for everything, & we haven't had a revolution in
physics for the better part of a century now. Maybe we are overdue. But
if an obstinate, inexplicable, contrary-to-theory revolutionary result
should happen stand up to careful scrutiny, it would have to be *much*
better than the likes of these two recent pseudo-examples.
>Since one of these deals with an *apparent* violation of thermodynamics, at
>least it seemed partially related to our discussions.
Maybe it *does* relate, since the entropy/2nd law arguments against
evolution and the origin of life are *also* only based on seductive naive
first-blush appearances--rather than on anything substantive. The origin
of life and some other knotty biological issues (which are quite
Gordian-esque) are *far* from resolved in terms of the currently accepted
and understood laws of nature. But the usual creationist & IDist
objections based on the 2nd law are not substantive objections. The OOL
problem seems so implausible based on some quicky-but-*very*-crude
(and *possibly* very misleading) probability estimates that I have some
significant doubt that the problem is soluable via the known laws of
nature. I do hold open the possiblity of miracle as a live possibility.
But I also hold open (and would personally sort of prefer) the
possibility that some ingenious OOL scenario will be found that
compellingly explains the whole thing. It's too soon to tell as far as I
can see.
But no matter which way the issue turns out it is entirely a scientific
rather than a religious issue for me. Having a fully naturalistic
account of the universe from within a Planck time of the Big Bang through
the appearance of the likes of us does nothing to God's status as the
creator and sustainer of all that is or was or will be. At most it would
only give us further reason to praise Him for allowing the likes of us
to get a deeper glimpse of his mighty works and to understand His Mind
more fully.
David Bowman
David_Bowman@georgetowncollege.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 13 2000 - 15:35:25 EST