Talking with physicists
10/06/16 05:26
I’m probably repeating myself. I enjoy conversations with physicists. There are a few brilliant physicists in our community whose work revolves around teaching at the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology and the Sanford Underground Laboratory. The deep lab has some amazing experiments and promises to be the home of even more elaborate physics experiments in the future. Physicists, it seems to me, stand out from those whose specialities are other disciplines of science, in their willingness to go beyond what can be directly observed.
Sometimes we think of scientific theory as the process of observation. The method is fairly straightforward: observe, measure, formulate theories about what might occur, test those theories, repeat. Physicists, in a manner that seems to be very similar to theologians, are willing to speculate about the fundamental nature of reality, which is fundamentally hidden from human perception.
For example, as I sit writing this blog this morning, my eyes tell me that I am at my familiar library table, a simple oak table with a single drawer and bookshelf ends. The table is brown, lightly stained and is very solidly built. The problem with my perception is that I am not really experiencing the reality of the table. What I am experiencing is a projection in my mind that is based on sensory input, primarily from my hands and my eyes. I know what I think a table is, but that thought is only in my mind. If I get others into the room and together we discuss the table we might come to a shared image, but we still are not encountering the reality of the table, we are simply coming to a comma image in different minds. Who is to say that what I perceive as brown is not perceived as red by another and simply carrying the same name? We don’t know for sure that different people upon sensing the same object are having identical perceptions.
Physicists are willing to question the fundamental reality of objects. The table appears to be still and solid, but in reality, at the level of atoms it is filled with motion. If theories about the existence of sub atomic particles are correct, there are all kinds of particles that can pass through the table as easily as I can wave my hand through the atmosphere around me.
Those who pursue what have been called “hard” sciences such as biology, chemistry and physics have frequently been dismissive of “soft” sciences such as sociology, philosophy and theology. There is a balance of imagination and observation in all scientific explorations and scientist who pursue knowledge with the tools of direct observation such as microscopes and telescopes are sometimes quick to be critical of those who pursue knowledge through the exercise of imagination and creativity.
Physicists, however, are quick to understand the limits of observation. Things aren’t always what they seem to be. We can observe and measure the motions of distant planets and stars in the universe. The problem is that through careful application of the most sophisticated forms of observation and mathematics, we have discovered that the numbers just don’t add up. What we see cannot be explained by what we know about the universal laws of nature. There must be things that we cannot see that exert gravitational forces and influence the movement of objects in space. Theories of dark matter and dark energy provide a framework for understanding some of the observations that have been made.
In other words, we have to employ the best of human imagination to explain what it is that we have observed.
It is not that long ago, in terms of the history of this planet, that scientific inquiries were seen as theological endeavors. Classic scientists such as Copernicus, Galileo and Newton believed that their observations of the natural world would reveal the personality of the Creator. They saw their endeavors as a way of seeking to know God. Part of the reason that their theories created uproar and dissent among religious leaders was that they were offering an alternative view of God that varied from the official teachings of the institutional church.
Today’s physicists are careful to avoid God language, with at least the one notable exception of referring to the Higgs boson as the “god particle.” This fundamental particle in the standard model of particle physics was first suspected to exist in the 1960’s but it wasn’t until this century that the particle was “discovered” through the use of the large CERN particle projector operated by the European Organization for Nuclear Research. The problem with the “discovery” of this particle is that the experiments that detected it have yet to be repeated. And there is nothing that could be seen by the human eye. It was simply theorized from deviations in the measurements of the experiment. In the field of particle physics even observation requires a substantial application of human imagination.
It is that use of imagination that attracts me to continuing conversations with physicists. I like the way they think. They are not bound by what we currently know, but are continually pushing to discover more, to understand more, to be better able to explain the phenomena of this world.
They are, it seems to me, a new generation of theologians. We, who pursue the love of the study of the knowledge of God, have always believed that there is something in the human capacity for imagination that reveals fundamental truths about the nature of the universe. If we are come to know the essence of reality we will have to stretch beyond our powers of direct observation. There is always something beyond the scope of what we have already experienced.
Physicists are giving us an entirely new language to talk about God, and they are uncomfortable with the language of theologians. But new language might be a very valuable tool in exploring the fundamental nature of the universe. I’m not worried about learning new language. After all, theologians have known for generations that human language and human perception fall far short of the language of God. New ways of expressing ourselves might help us to discover new ways of seeing and understanding that which is beyond the scope of our current understanding.
For now, I treasure opportunities to speak with and listen to the physicists.
Sometimes we think of scientific theory as the process of observation. The method is fairly straightforward: observe, measure, formulate theories about what might occur, test those theories, repeat. Physicists, in a manner that seems to be very similar to theologians, are willing to speculate about the fundamental nature of reality, which is fundamentally hidden from human perception.
For example, as I sit writing this blog this morning, my eyes tell me that I am at my familiar library table, a simple oak table with a single drawer and bookshelf ends. The table is brown, lightly stained and is very solidly built. The problem with my perception is that I am not really experiencing the reality of the table. What I am experiencing is a projection in my mind that is based on sensory input, primarily from my hands and my eyes. I know what I think a table is, but that thought is only in my mind. If I get others into the room and together we discuss the table we might come to a shared image, but we still are not encountering the reality of the table, we are simply coming to a comma image in different minds. Who is to say that what I perceive as brown is not perceived as red by another and simply carrying the same name? We don’t know for sure that different people upon sensing the same object are having identical perceptions.
Physicists are willing to question the fundamental reality of objects. The table appears to be still and solid, but in reality, at the level of atoms it is filled with motion. If theories about the existence of sub atomic particles are correct, there are all kinds of particles that can pass through the table as easily as I can wave my hand through the atmosphere around me.
Those who pursue what have been called “hard” sciences such as biology, chemistry and physics have frequently been dismissive of “soft” sciences such as sociology, philosophy and theology. There is a balance of imagination and observation in all scientific explorations and scientist who pursue knowledge with the tools of direct observation such as microscopes and telescopes are sometimes quick to be critical of those who pursue knowledge through the exercise of imagination and creativity.
Physicists, however, are quick to understand the limits of observation. Things aren’t always what they seem to be. We can observe and measure the motions of distant planets and stars in the universe. The problem is that through careful application of the most sophisticated forms of observation and mathematics, we have discovered that the numbers just don’t add up. What we see cannot be explained by what we know about the universal laws of nature. There must be things that we cannot see that exert gravitational forces and influence the movement of objects in space. Theories of dark matter and dark energy provide a framework for understanding some of the observations that have been made.
In other words, we have to employ the best of human imagination to explain what it is that we have observed.
It is not that long ago, in terms of the history of this planet, that scientific inquiries were seen as theological endeavors. Classic scientists such as Copernicus, Galileo and Newton believed that their observations of the natural world would reveal the personality of the Creator. They saw their endeavors as a way of seeking to know God. Part of the reason that their theories created uproar and dissent among religious leaders was that they were offering an alternative view of God that varied from the official teachings of the institutional church.
Today’s physicists are careful to avoid God language, with at least the one notable exception of referring to the Higgs boson as the “god particle.” This fundamental particle in the standard model of particle physics was first suspected to exist in the 1960’s but it wasn’t until this century that the particle was “discovered” through the use of the large CERN particle projector operated by the European Organization for Nuclear Research. The problem with the “discovery” of this particle is that the experiments that detected it have yet to be repeated. And there is nothing that could be seen by the human eye. It was simply theorized from deviations in the measurements of the experiment. In the field of particle physics even observation requires a substantial application of human imagination.
It is that use of imagination that attracts me to continuing conversations with physicists. I like the way they think. They are not bound by what we currently know, but are continually pushing to discover more, to understand more, to be better able to explain the phenomena of this world.
They are, it seems to me, a new generation of theologians. We, who pursue the love of the study of the knowledge of God, have always believed that there is something in the human capacity for imagination that reveals fundamental truths about the nature of the universe. If we are come to know the essence of reality we will have to stretch beyond our powers of direct observation. There is always something beyond the scope of what we have already experienced.
Physicists are giving us an entirely new language to talk about God, and they are uncomfortable with the language of theologians. But new language might be a very valuable tool in exploring the fundamental nature of the universe. I’m not worried about learning new language. After all, theologians have known for generations that human language and human perception fall far short of the language of God. New ways of expressing ourselves might help us to discover new ways of seeing and understanding that which is beyond the scope of our current understanding.
For now, I treasure opportunities to speak with and listen to the physicists.