Does.Atom have a designer?

wil

wil

UNeyeR1
Messages
25,485
Reaction score
4,814
Points
108
Location
a figment of your imagination
Have not read this book, just saw it today.

Does the Atom Have A Designer? , Goenka, Lakhi - Amazon.com

Does the Atom Have A Designer? - Kindle edition by Goenka, Lakhi. Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Use features like bookmarks, note taking and highlighting while reading Does the Atom Have A Designer?.
www.amazon.com

This book, written by a secular researcher searching for answers, examines subatomic behaviors such as wave-particle duality & quantum superposition, quark-gluon interactions within the atomic nucleus, and electron-photon interactions within atomic orbitals, as well as their role in realizing the many functionalities of the Atom.
 
I liked this review on Amazon:

"An issue I thought lurked in the background without ever being noticed or at least named was the likelihood that as physics progresses, there will be a discovery of underlying order that makes some of the force of the "fine tuning" sort of arguments fade. The entire atomic zoo of electrons and photons to carry the electromagnetic interaction and protons and neutrons and mesons and quarks and gluons, with all the rules and constants that govern them... there is every reason to believe that deeper rules will be found that cause bundles of the apparently free parameters in the Standard Model to turn out not to be independent, but manifestations of single deeper rules. Physics and chemistry have seen more than one cycle of diversification followed by discovery of deeper order. The four classical elements turned into several dozen chemical elements, but then electrons, neutrons, and protons were discovered, and the existence of elements turns out to be simply bundling those into different sized groups. Then the particle zoo expanded after the war, but was to some extent tamed by the eightfold way and eventually the Standard Model. String theory is perhaps a failed attempt to find a deeper order, but that's no assurance that nothing else will succeed.

Of course, the existence of a single deeper principle that explains all of physics would hardly tell against the possibility of there being a First Cause... quite the opposite. It would push the idea that this Cause _has_ to be intentional back into the realm of theology, to some extent."
 
  • Like
Reactions: wil
wil said:
That is what I see theology as...discussions of the unknown...by folks who don't know, but believe.
Click to expand...
Tobe fair, that's a lot of cosmology, too, as science at the limits of knowledge ...

Or put another way, our systems of science takes data and tries to make sense of it, according to certain axioms.

It's all about faith and belief ...
 
wil said:
Sort of, but science is supposed to be evidence based...all the big bang theories are conjecture...
Click to expand...
The physical-empirical sciences, yes. But that does not contain the entirely of human knowledge and understanding.

But even those are pioneered by theories, dreams, imaginings, intuitions, inspirations, insights ...

Some discuss whether the entire model is itself a construct, a kind of Newtonian method that doesn't entirely lend itself to the Quantum world, for example. One which limits our way of seeing/thinking as much as it illuminates ... we're just using maths to prove more of the same ...

I liked the idea in the comment that there may be something deeper yet we have yet to discover ...

Regarding cosmology, for example, I fail to see, among an array of conjectures, why the suggestion of a First Cause is so easily dismissed.

Admittedly, I can see it offends some scientific sensibilities in that the physical/empirical sciences will then be obliged to admit there is something outside its scope ...

Likewise, I reject the notion that any study that isn't physical-empirical is not worthy of the name 'science'. That's breath-takingly narrow-minded.

wil said:
When we discover/prove something, like earth revolving around the sun... the books have to be updated...
Click to expand...
So are ours? We don't believe the earth is the centre of the universe any more.

Not the Bible, of course. It's a universal accepted fact that the sacra doctrina of the world belong to a genre of their own. To start rewriting them to reflect our own rationality would be a crime against humanity.

But regarding commentaries on the sacra doctrina, there are Christian thinkers who are recognised as some of the most profound thinkers of the last century – Bernard Lonnergan, Paul Ricoeur.

Some scientists would do well to verse themselves in the above's commentaries on the theory of hermeneutics, of interpretation, of language and narrative ... commentaries that can only become increasingly relevant in understanding how we understand what we understand of what our senses and systems are telling us ...

And again, as the review observes, a new theory just kicks the tin can further down the road. One the mind decides it has reached a horizon, we know we've lost the plot.
 
The plot is lost when we give up for convenient answers. Gear up and go, if it is a long road, let it be.
 
The religious books were all "gospel" at one time, yeah some folks have changed what they believe based on corrections by science. But others still build arks and claim scientific and historical accuracy...and build museums explaining how all is correct with man and dinosaurs together.

Without updating the textbook....this is the results we.get.today.

And yes.science ain't done, still looking for the God head, theory of everything, that allows the quantum math to work with earth math to work with the time warp of space...

Yes science makes some assumptions...but none are sacred, all will be tossed in the bin, with new info updated info. And the books and history and theories will be updated and not taught in schools other than part of a process that got us Herr.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top