Physics

Our analysis of the Great Debate

Posted by

Well, it didn’t quite take us a week — we were just so excited by “The Great Debate: Is There Evidence for God?” that we couldn’t wait to comment on it. The following analysis is co-written by Surak and Sarah.

The two opposing sides of the scientific debate over the God hypothesis were well represented on Wednesday by Dr. William Lane Craig (Christian Philosopher and Theologian from Talbot School of Theology) and Dr. Lawrence Krauss (Theoretical Physicist from Arizona State University). Dr. Craig’s argument was based on the clearly-stated and logical assertion that if God’s existence is more probable given certain information, that information meets the essential criterion for evidence. Dr. Krauss was equally clear in his definition of evidence: it must be falsifiable to be scientific. We find both standards to be very useful.

There was some confusion on the part of the moderator as to whether the topic of the debate was the existence of any evidence for God or the existence of enough evidence to prove God’s existence. We think the moderator erred in his statement of the debate’s purpose, since no one could reasonably argue that there is proof or disproof of God’s existence. As Dr. Krauss correctly stated, science cannot falsify God; so, the question can only be, “Is God likely?”

We will assess the debate in terms of whether or not there is any evidence for the existence of God, although Dr. Krauss tried to set the bar unfairly high with his assertion that a highly extraordinary proposition, such as the God hypothesis, requires extraordinary evidence. However, we think defenders of the God hypothesis can accept and meet this challenge.

Continue reading →

The Great Debate: Postmortem

Posted by

Well. That was thorough.

It’ll probably take me about a week to write up my commentary on The Great Debate. It will be broken into two or three parts, since there is a lot of ground to cover. Also, it won’t be just me — Surak will handle one aspect of the material (the probability argument) and I will handle the other (the nature of science argument).

Meanwhile, after two hours and twenty minutes of rousing debate about the deepest questions of existence, this is my frame of mind:

(Click to enlarge.)

Off to do some wallowing.

Continue reading →

The Great Debate: Is There Evidence for God?

Posted by

3

Update: Be sure to check out our analysis of The Great Debate.

♦ ◊ ♦

Re-posting this, since today’s the day. I will be tuning in, and will present a critique of both sides on this blog within a day or three of the debate.

Copied-and-pasted from an email I received:

Join Thousands across America tuning in on March 30 to…

The Great Debate: Is There Evidence for God?

Two Really Smart Guys Go Head to Head to debate the existence of God on a live, streaming video. Dr. William Lane Craig (Christian Philosopher and Theologian from Talbot School of Theology) will debate Dr. Lawrence Krauss (Theoretical Physicist from Arizona State University) on the question, “Is There Evidence For God?”

The debate will stream live on the web on the night of March 30, beginning at 7 PM.

It is suggested you log on to view the debate on the web at least 15 minutes prior to the event, to make sure everything on your computer is set up correctly. If you cannot watch it then, the debate will be available to watch at any time after the debate is over. Some suggestions may be to watch it from your home or to set up a live showing of it for a group.

If you have friends with whom you have discussed these kinds of questions be sure to pass along this info. And then tune in and decide which side you think presents the most compelling arguments.

DETAILS:

Date: Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Time: 7:00 PM EDT
[Note: The email stated EST, but I’m pretty sure it’s EDT. -Ed.]
Location: NC State

You can stream it live from the official website (link appears to be working now).

♦ ◊ ♦

Some background for each of the debaters [h/t PQ Exchange]:

Quantum physics could explain our sense of smell

Posted by

Did you know that nobody really knows how the nose knows? But some scientists think our sense of smell could come down to quantum physics:

The key, [scientists] say, is tiny packets of energy, or quanta, lost by electrons.

Experiments using tiny wires show that as electrons move on proteins within the nose, odour molecules could absorb these quanta and thereby be detected.

The way our brains translate raw data from our noses into a smell is apparently understood, but how our noses recognize odor molecules in the first place is still largely unknown. The quantum explanation, once highly debatable, now appears to be more plausible with the results from these experiments.

Continue reading →

Radiation dose chart

Posted by

7

I’m encountering a lot of people who are understandably concerned about radiation leakage from the damaged Fukushima plant in Japan. But very few of them seem to know the extent to which exposure to radiation is a fact of life on Earth. Did you know, for instance, that you’ll be exposed to more radiation by eating a banana than by living within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant for a year?

Randall Munroe, who pens the hilariously geeky webcomic, xkcd, has teamed up with a friend at the Reed Research Reactor to create a visual aid for understanding radiation exposure levels. As Munroe cautions, the situation at Fukushima seems to be changing by the hour, but this should at least help put things in perspective.

Click on the image to enlarge.

More support for the existence of dark energy

Posted by

The case for dark energy is looking stronger, thanks to new results from the recently-installed Wide Field Camera 3 instrument aboard the Hubble Space Telescope. Dark energy has been hypothesized as the mysterious force causing the expansion of the universe to speed up, but competing models suggest other reasons for the accelerated expansion. A leading competitor is a bubble model that suggests our Milky Way galaxy sits at the center of a relatively sparse region of the universe, and the resulting weaker gravity is causing our local “bubble” to expand more rapidly than the universe as a whole. However, astrophysicists at the Space Telescope Science Institute claim that refined measurements made with the WFC3 have ruled out the bubble model, which predicts a different expansion rate than what is observed.

There are philosophical objections to the bubble model, as well. Ever since Copernicus put forth his Sun-centered model of the solar system, scientists have tended to reject the notion that we occupy any special place in the universe. A model that requires Earth-observers to be at the center of a cosmic bubble makes us a little too special for comfort for most scientists. This alone doesn’t disprove the model (we must never be locked into a conclusion by our philosophy), but it can certainly offer guidance. Adam Riess, head of the research team publishing the new results, comments,

“I know that a lot of people have not taken that theory very seriously because of a major problem with it,” he said. “We tend to believe theories where we don’t live in any special place in the universe. That would be very strange – why should we be in a special place?”

Now that scenario is even less likely to be true, Riess said.

“But on the other hand, dark energy’s pretty weird too,” he said.

Every revolutionary idea in science seems weird at first. If the dark energy model survives the rigors of scientific testing, people a hundred years from now probably won’t find it any weirder than we find the electromagnetic theory of light.

Continue reading →

Nanotech may keep you chatting for much longer

Posted by

3

Tired of having to charge your cell phone battery every couple of days? Nanotechnology may be coming to the rescue with an improvement in cell phone technology that could reduce the drain on your battery by a factor of 100 — that means months of use without having to charge your battery. The new technology involves the use of carbon nanotubes to reduce the size of tiny wires that convey digital information in your phone, which in turn cuts the amount of electricity that’s needed to make your phone work. Even better: reduced power consumption could eventually lead to cell phones that are powered by heat or sunshine.

Check out this quickie vid if you’re wondering what in the world these carbon nanotube thingies are anyway. (Note how the nanotube professor describes what he does as “curiosity-driven science.” That’s an outstanding explanation.)

Continue reading →

All eyes on nuclear reactors in the aftermath of Japan quake

Posted by

Nuclear power is used by many countries to produce electricity, including Japan where the 8.9-magnitude earthquake that shook the country on Friday has caused the Fukushima I facility’s backup safety systems for two of its eight reactors to fail. The No. 1 reactor suffered an explosion, likely fueled by hydrogen gas, that has apparently not affected the reactor containment structure.  The USAF has supplied emergency coolant to the reactors, but the situation is critical enough that tens of thousands of residents within a 20 km radius of the plant have been evacuated.

Experts from around the world, including the deputy director of the Chernobyl nuclear safety center, have said this will not be a repeat of the Chernobyl disaster that occurred in Ukraine in 1986. Japan’s 54 nuclear reactors, and all Western civil nuclear facilities, are designed with better safety standards than the Chernobyl facility. Still, it seems the extent of the damage to the Fukushima facility is unclear, and residents are understandably nervous.

Please keep the Japanese people in your prayers.

Continue reading →

Prune fingers lead to insights on structural strength

Posted by

5

Have you ever thought about how incredible it is that our skin not only doesn’t dissolve after being submerged in water for a long time, but retains its strength? Mathematicians are thinking about it, and are hoping the study of pruny skin will shed light on new ways to provide structural stability. Myfanwy Evans, an Australian mathematician who specializes in topology — a branch of math that studies how geometric figures remain unchanged even after they have been bent and stretched — has used her experience with strange shapes called gyroids1 to come up with a “stringy skin model” that may explain how our skin works. This model could lead to the development of new materials that provide the same structural stability as human skin.

Continue reading →