A little help for my non scientist friends

I'm sure everyone was waiting for me to weigh in on the Pope's comments on the Big Bang Theory and Evolution.

The Holy Father is a trained chemist, so he gets a little bit of a slide on his comments. But of course as everyone knows the order or hierarchy in science is: physicist = mathematician > chemist > biologist > everyone else :p (And if you don't, this IS how we view the universe of science...(yes, it's tongue in cheek, but there's an element of truth to this, physics is HARD) But there are some important principles which are often forgotten which one needs to be reminded of.

a. Something can't come from nothing.

I feel that physics students would do better with either a semester or a year of philosophy under their belts because of the language of philosophy that penetrates physics often enough. Basic philosophy teaches that something can't come from nothing. This principle extends into physics. There can't be something without an atia (a cause)....Things do not appear out of thin air. In this sense, yes, God is not a magician...it's not a slight of hand or optical illusion, but His creation is real and True.

Understanding the laws of motion, there's a point that often gets confused about the first law. The first law deals with the absence of external (outside) forces. In this situation, a body is at rest or at constant velocity (but not both at the same time)...(The situation of the sum of outside forces being zero is not dealt with in the first law)

Likewise, any change in movement (whether it be a big bang, or even evolution) can't happen without a cause. To say that it happens by itself would be a heretical physics idea. More or less this is what I think the Holy Father was attempting to convey, but could have done so better (It's been a while since he's seen all this stuff, so I'm sure he's a bit rusty...I'm not allowed to get rusty, I have someone that's on my back for it)

b. Getting some things out the way

God is not the author of confusion or deception....that must be kept in mind when he is referring to God not being a magician. But there also things that we need to keep in mind.

Scripture reveals a few things about the order of the universe, that the earth was created first, light came before the stars and the sun, and man was formed from dirt, woman from the rib of Adam...

What it does not say is whether a model was used, where the earth was placed in the order of the universe. (It is not directly implicit that the earth would be in the center of the universe, many of the Church Fathers believed that the earth was at the center of the universe)....For God does not have to do so, but he could very well do so. God is all knowing and all present, and while not bound to our human limitations and our language, God is a God of order and reason, so He would not do things that'd violate order and reason.

A point I ought to mention about physics is that mathematics is a tool to assist us in the understanding of the universe. It is not, never has been, and never will be the end all be all of physics. There are times when math goes beyond physics and vise versa. So, I must say that this particular quote from Pat Archibald is not true at all. (Will  not let me link to the quote)

"Physics is the only profession where you can say stupid stuff like "Ummm, I think that 90% of the universe must be made up of unobserved and invisible stuff because otherwise my equations don't work" and people still think you are good at your job."

The vast majority of concepts in physics are NOT defined mathematically, but rather described mathematically. Y'all might think I'm being a nit picky person, but, it is a HUGE distinction which must be made. A great example is the equation for Gravitational Energy. We do not define force as a mathematical concept, but rather this is an approximation, what we've observed and shown through experiment to happen. To define something in stone, means that it can't be changed. And if you've noticed anything there have been lots of various discoveries, whether it be the Higgs Bosom, and pretty much everything post 1870. What beauty this universe is to be able to find out new things as we pursue the Order of Truth. Yes, I'm being picky, but it's because we do not wish to be limited by things we're not limited by.

But all my words being said, bear in mind that this is a weekday homily and has zero bearing on the Magisterium....but golly, it'd be nice if we at least can get some of these things right....I'm probably going to have to become the pontifical lecturer of physics just to keep his head on straight :p. Hopefully this relatively short post will help clear some things.

Pax Vobis

The Principle: a discussion part I

If you remember, I did a quick promotion of The Principle discussion that would be happening on ChurchMillitant.TV. Because I do not think it fair to write entire essays on blog comments, I have chosen to discuss a bit of my thoughts here. Bear in mind my background is physics, and I can comment a bit more on the subject than most.

First we need to start with what the coparnican principle states, and what it does not state.

def: Copernican principle: states that the Earth is not in a central, specially favored position in the universe

Of course this theory is named after Copernicus (a Catholic priest), but Copernicus did not really advocate this theory as I am presenting it to you now. (As with a lot of things named after scientists)....

As presented as such, there are problems that wouldn't be apparent to the naked eye.

• It would seem to deny the uniqueness of the earth as Revelation has revealed to us.
• It would seem to deny the role of man in the universe.
• If we take this view, it would also seem to reduce the role of earth in the role of heaven and earth.
• and various problems, that I'm afraid I do not have the time or capacity to address :p

I want to address the 2nd part of this principle as stated above first. 

That the earth is not in a specially located position in the universe. 

If you ever have the misfortune of being stuck in one of my physics classes, there are about 6 things I really expect my students to have memorized (from these 6 things, all other principles can be derived or deduced), they are as follows: 

• Newton's Laws of Motion 
• Law of Conservation of Energy
• Law of Conservation of Momentum
• 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (disorder form)
• The difference between magnetic and electric fields and their "creation"
• the difference between an object and a body

I'll elaborate only on a couple of points.

a. Newton's Laws of motion....The laws of motion for the most part describe motion that occurs in the universe....(at speeds much less than the speed of light)...the natural tendency of a body is to travel in a straight line (1st law), acceleration of a body is directly proportional to the force (cause) and inversely proportional to its mass (resistance or inertia) (2nd Law) and two bodies exert forces equal and opposite on each other (3rd law).

When we think of motion in a circle, there must be a force to maintain it, otherwise it will travel in a straight line. This is a very important point for anything that would have the potential to travel in a circle. In this case, orbits....The circle being the perfect 2D shape, and the sphere being the perfect 3D shape it's something to consider. The symmetry between the two shapes, I can talk about in a later blog post...but for now, all you need to know is that the two are related, a sphere being a collection of circles. (or as defined often in texts: from the center, equal radii vectors spanning in 360 degrees)

b. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (disorder form)

Entropy is a measure of disorder...and 2nd law of thermodynamics (no, the 1st law is the one where you don't talk about the first law of thermodynamics)...states: Entropy of an isolated system never decreases.

For those of you wondering with entropy is: Entropy is the ratio of the transfer of thermal energy (heat, Q) to the temperature absolute (T)...or as a mathematical equation S = dQ/dT....but since I'm far too lazy to teach you math, and I'd much rather teach you physics....entropy is a measure of disorder....In otherwords, as I increase the temperature, things tend to break apart.

I'll connect the dots together later...this is probably going to take 4 or 5 entries to talk about :), I'll continue next week...