Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Muon

2016-09-05T15:22:27Z

PeterHockey: Linked it to cosmic rays

A '''muon''' is a fundamental constituent of [[matter]]. Its properties are similar to those of the more-familiar [[electron]], but it is roughly 206 times more massive. Muons belong to a category of elementary particles known as [[lepton]]s.

== History ==

Muons were discovered by [[Carl D. Anderson]], n American physicist who also first observed the positron, in 1936.

== Links with relativity ==

Muons can be formed by interactions between [[cosmic rays]] and the upper atmosphere. The resulting muons have extremely high energies, and therefore have speeds close to that of light. When the flux of muons reaching the ground is compared to that in the upper atmosphere, we observe many more muon reach the ground than expected (fewer have decayed than expected). This can be explained using [[time dilation]] and [[relativity#length contraction|length contraction]]. Not only does a muon experience less time than an on the ground, but the distance from the top of the atmosphere and the surface of the earth is greatly reduced in the muon's frame of reference. Hence there will be a greater flux at sea level.

==Uses in nuclear fusion==
Hypothetically, a steady stream of muons could be used to jumpstart nuclear fusion, by replacing the electrons. Because Muons are 217 times heavier than electrons, an atom with muons orbiting it would be more attracted to other atoms. However, the difficulty in acquiring muons and preventing them from decaying presents a hurdle to nuclear fusion with muons.

[[Category:Physics]]

Cosmic ray

2016-09-05T15:12:44Z

PeterHockey:

[[File:Mt. Sulphur cosmic ray observatory.jpg|thumb|right|Mt. Sulphur cosmic ray observatory]]
'''Cosmic rays''' are extremely high-energy [[radiation]], mainly originating outside the [[Solar System]].<ref>{{cite book
| last=Sharma
| title=Atomic And Nuclear Physics
| date=2008
| publisher=Pearson Education India
| isbn=978-81-317-1924-4
| page=478
}}</ref> Cosmic rays are composed primarily of high-energy [[proton]]s and [[atomic nuclei]]. They are of mysterious origin. They were given the name "rays" in the mistaken belief that they were a form of electromagnetic radiation. However, cosmic rays are fermions rather than photons. Due to relativistic effects, cosmic rays have a very high mass and reach energies of up to 1014 eV.
== Discovery ==
In 1909 [[Theodor Wulf]] developed an [[electrometer]], a device to measure the rate of ion production inside a hermetically sealed container. Wulf used it to find higher levels of radiation at the top of the [[Eiffel Tower]] than at its base. However, his paper was not widely accepted. In 1911, [[Domenico Pacini]] wanted to determine if ionizing radiation came from the Earth or from other sources. He measured simultaneous variations of the rate of ionization over a lake, over the sea, and at a depth of 3 meters from the surface. His measurements suggested that there was a source other than just the Earth.<ref>
{{cite journal
|author=D. Pacini
|date=1912
|title=La radiazione penetrante alla superficie ed in seno alle acque
|journal=[[Il Nuovo Cimento]], Series VI
|volume=3 |pages=93–100
|doi=10.1007/BF02957440
}}</ref>

In 1912, Victor Hess carried three enhanced-accuracy Wulf electrometers<ref name=HessNobelPresSp>{{cite web|url=http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1936/press.html |title=Nobel Prize in Physics 1936 – Presentation Speech |publisher=Nobelprize.org |date=1936-12-10 |accessdate=Sept 4, 2016}}</ref> to an altitude of 5300 meters in a [[hot air balloon|free balloon]] flight. He found the ionization rate increased approximately fourfold over the rate at ground level.<ref name=HessNobelPresSp/> Hess eliminated the Sun as the radiation's source by making a balloon ascent during a near-total eclipse. With the moon blocking much of the Sun's visible radiation, Hess still measured rising radiation at rising altitudes.<ref name=HessNobelPresSp/> He concluded "The results of my observation are best explained by the assumption that a radiation of very great penetrating power enters our atmosphere from above." In 1913–1914, Werner Kolhörster confirmed Victor Hess' earlier results by measuring the increased ionization rate at an altitude of 9 km. Hess received the [[Nobel Prize]] in Physics in 1936 for his discovery.<ref>
{{cite web
|author=V.F. Hess
|date=1936
|title=The Nobel Prize in Physics 1936
|url=http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1936/index.html
|publisher=[[The Nobel Foundation]]
|accessdate=Sept 4, 2016
}}</ref>

==Effects==
Cosmic rays react with Nitrogen and Oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere that among other things results in Ozone depletion. Cosmic rays also react with Carbon to form Carbon-14. Until the time of nuclear testing, the amount of 14C has been relatively constant, which is the basis for carbon-dating of materials.

Cosmic rays can interfere with electronic devices and make space travel more dangerous as they are a form of radiation.
==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Physics]]

Debate:Is creation science scientific?

2016-09-05T15:08:59Z

PeterHockey:

By this I mean "is creation science falsifiable?"
I was reading about the [[starlight problem]] and the solution according to [[creation science]] is that [[God]] created the light in transit. While this seems plausible, it doesn't seem like something that an experiment can be devised to test this claim. Hence it is not falsifiable. Of course if it were possible to disprove the existence of God, then it would be falsifiable, but that isn't possible. Any thoughts?
[[User:PeterHockey|PeterHockey]] 09:24, 5 September 2016 (EDT)

:Origins science is a historical science and not operational science. It is like archaeology. See: http://creation.com/origins-vs-operational-science

:However, the biblical creation model makes certain predictions which the evidence very strongly suggests are true. For example, the universe had a beginning, big gulf between life and non-life [http://creation.com/origin-of-life], large gulf between man an animals (For example, no animal orchestras), no life on other planets has ever been found is a reasonable inference of the biblical model [http://creation.com/did-god-create-life-on-other-planets] whereas the evolutionist SETI project as an expensive failure and they are getting desperate now [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/07/desperate_for_c102977.html], etc. etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:24, 5 September 2016 (EDT)

::Ok, I think I see what you mean, but concentrating on the [[starlight problem]], it doesn't make any predictions other than what it's trying to explain. So how is that valid?
[[User:PeterHockey|PeterHockey]] 11:08, 5 September 2016 (EDT)

Raspberry Pi

2016-09-05T13:53:31Z

PeterHockey: Minor changes

[[File:Rasberry pi card.jpg|thumb|right|A Rasberry Pi printed circuit card]]'''Rasberry Pi''' is an educational single-board computer designed for students and hobbiests. Raspberry Pi Foundation developed it in the [[United Kingdom]] to promote the teaching of basic computer science in schools and developing countries.

==History==
Previously, in 1981, Acorn had worked with the [[British Broadcasting Corporation]] to make a low-cost computer available in the [[United Kingdom]] for students, but that hardware was out-of-date. The group that resulted in the Rasberry Pi, wanted to create a new computer and also market it under the BBC Micro name, but Acorn own the rights to that name through 2011.<ref name="rpi_bbcsucc">{{cite web|title=Raspberry Pi • View topic - Raspberry Pi as the successor of BBC Micro |url=http://www.raspberrypi.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5118 |date=22 April 2012|accessdate=September 4, 2016|publisher=raspberrypi.org |quote=The Foundation trustees tried very hard to get an agreement to use the BBC Micro name, right up to May 2011. /../ Eben touched on the subject a bit during his speech at the Beeb@30 celebration at the beginning of the month: http://www.raspberrypi.org/archives/970 starting at time index 11:30}}</ref> So, the project picked a different name, Raspberry Pi.

In 2006, early concepts of the Raspberry Pi were based on the [[Atmel]] [[ATmega]]644 microcontroller, which had publicly available schematics.<ref name="ubergizmo build your own">{{cite web |url=http://www.ubergizmo.com/2011/10/build-raspberry-pi-minicomputer/ |title=Build your own prototype Raspberry Pi minicomputer |publisher=ubergizmo |date=24 October 2011 |accessdate=September 4, 2016 |author=Wong, George}}</ref> Foundation [[trustee]] [[Eben Upton]] assembled a group of teachers and computer enthusiasts to devise a new computer to inspire a new generation of students.<ref name="guardian reboot computing">{{cite news |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jan/09/raspberry-pi-computer-revolutionise-computing-schools?newsfeed=true |title=Raspberry Pi device will 'reboot computing in schools' |work=The Guardian |date=9 January 2012 |accessdate=September 4, 2016 |author=Moorhead, Joanna |location=London}}</ref> Pi's model A, model B and model B+ are references to the original models of the British educational [[BBC Micro]] computer, developed by [[Acorn Computers]].<ref name="raspberrypi model names">{{cite web |url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/28/raspberry_pi/page3.html |title=Psst, kid... Wanna learn how to hack? |publisher=The Register |date=28 November 2011 |accessdate=September 4, 2016 |author=Williams, Chris}}</ref> The first model was released in February 2012. In May 2014, the three millionth Pi shipped.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.raspberrypi.org/raspberry-pi-at-buckingham-palace-3-million-sold/ |title=RASPBERRY PI AT BUCKINGHAM PALACE, 3 MILLION SOLD |accessdate=September 4,2016}}</ref>
==Software==
The Foundation provides [[Raspbian]], a Debian based [[linux distribution]] for download, as well as third party [[Ubuntu (operating system)|Ubuntu]], [[Windows 10 IoT Core|Windows 10 IOT Core]], [[RISC OS]], and specialised [[OpenELEC|media center]] distributions.<ref name="raspberrypi downloads">{{cite web|url=http://www.raspberrypi.org/downloads|title=Raspberry Pi downloads|last=|first=|date=|website=|publisher=|accessdate=Sept 4, 2016}}</ref> It promotes [[Python (programming language)|Python]] and [[Scratch (programming language)|Scratch]] as the main programming language, with support for many other languages.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.raspberrypi.org/documentation/usage/|title=Usage - Raspberry Pi Documentation|website=www.raspberrypi.org|access-date=September 4, 2016}}</ref>
==Hardware and accessories==
The board contains USB and HDMI ports that will allow connection to keyboard and monitors. Raspberry Pi also sells a camera and expansion boards.
==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Computers]]

Raspberry Pi

2016-09-05T13:52:19Z

PeterHockey: Minor changes

[[File:Rasberry pi card.jpg|thumb|right|A Rasberry Pi printed circuit card]]'''Rasberry Pi''' is an educational single-board computer designed for students and hobbiests. Raspberry Pi Foundation developed it in the [[United Kingdom]] to promote the teaching of basic computer science in schools and developing countries.

==History==
Previously, in 1981, Acorn had worked with the [[British Boardcasting Corporation]] to make a low-cost computer available in the [[United Kingdom]] for students, but that hardware was out-of-date. The group that resulted in the Rasberry Pi, wanted to create a new computer and also market it under the BBC Micro name, but Acorn own the rights to that name through 2011.<ref name="rpi_bbcsucc">{{cite web|title=Raspberry Pi • View topic - Raspberry Pi as the successor of BBC Micro |url=http://www.raspberrypi.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5118 |date=22 April 2012|accessdate=September 4, 2016|publisher=raspberrypi.org |quote=The Foundation trustees tried very hard to get an agreement to use the BBC Micro name, right up to May 2011. /../ Eben touched on the subject a bit during his speech at the Beeb@30 celebration at the beginning of the month: http://www.raspberrypi.org/archives/970 starting at time index 11:30}}</ref> So, the project picked a different name, Raspberry Pi.

In 2006, early concepts of the Raspberry Pi were based on the [[Atmel]] [[ATmega]]644 microcontroller, which had publicly available schematics.<ref name="ubergizmo build your own">{{cite web |url=http://www.ubergizmo.com/2011/10/build-raspberry-pi-minicomputer/ |title=Build your own prototype Raspberry Pi minicomputer |publisher=ubergizmo |date=24 October 2011 |accessdate=September 4, 2016 |author=Wong, George}}</ref> Foundation [[trustee]] [[Eben Upton]] assembled a group of teachers and computer enthusiasts to devise a new computer to inspire a new generation of students.<ref name="guardian reboot computing">{{cite news |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jan/09/raspberry-pi-computer-revolutionise-computing-schools?newsfeed=true |title=Raspberry Pi device will 'reboot computing in schools' |work=The Guardian |date=9 January 2012 |accessdate=September 4, 2016 |author=Moorhead, Joanna |location=London}}</ref> Pi's model A, model B and model B+ are references to the original models of the British educational [[BBC Micro]] computer, developed by [[Acorn Computers]].<ref name="raspberrypi model names">{{cite web |url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/28/raspberry_pi/page3.html |title=Psst, kid... Wanna learn how to hack? |publisher=The Register |date=28 November 2011 |accessdate=September 4, 2016 |author=Williams, Chris}}</ref> The first model was released in February 2012. In May 2014, the three millionth Pi shipped.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.raspberrypi.org/raspberry-pi-at-buckingham-palace-3-million-sold/ |title=RASPBERRY PI AT BUCKINGHAM PALACE, 3 MILLION SOLD |accessdate=September 4,2016}}</ref>
==Software==
The Foundation provides [[Raspbian]], a Debian based [[linux distribution]] for download, as well as third party [[Ubuntu (operating system)|Ubuntu]], [[Windows 10 IoT Core|Windows 10 IOT Core]], [[RISC OS]], and specialised [[OpenELEC|media center]] distributions.<ref name="raspberrypi downloads">{{cite web|url=http://www.raspberrypi.org/downloads|title=Raspberry Pi downloads|last=|first=|date=|website=|publisher=|accessdate=Sept 4, 2016}}</ref> It promotes [[Python (programming language)|Python]] and [[Scratch (programming language)|Scratch]] as the main programming language, with support for many other languages.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.raspberrypi.org/documentation/usage/|title=Usage - Raspberry Pi Documentation|website=www.raspberrypi.org|access-date=September 4, 2016}}</ref>
==Hardware and accessories==
The board contains USB and HDMI ports that will allow connection to keyboard and monitors. Raspberry Pi also sells a camera and expansion boards.
==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Computers]]

Debate:Is creation science scientific?

2016-09-05T13:32:06Z

PeterHockey: Created pagw

Theory of relativity

2016-09-04T14:03:09Z

PeterHockey: Added reference

''See also [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].''

In physics, the '''theory of relativity''' is a scientific theory describing the effects due to the invariance of the speed of light. In particular, the meaning of space and time are altered by the motion of the observer. Relativity predicts phenomena such as time dilation and length contraction for observers moving relative to one another at very high ("relativistic") speed.

'''Relativity''' refers to two closely-related mathematical theories in [[physics]]:
[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|
*"I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional [[Atheism|atheist]] whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." - [[Albert Einstein]]<ref name="Isaacson390">Isaacson, Walter (2008). [http://books.google.com/books?id=cdxWNE7NY6QC&pg=PT390 ''Einstein: His Life and Universe''] (New York: Simon and Schuster), p. 390. Retrieved from GoogleBooks archive on February 19, 2015.</ref>]]
*'''[[Special theory of relativity|Special relativity]]''' (SR) is a theory which describes the laws of motion for non-accelerating bodies traveling at a significant fraction of the [[speed of light]]. As speeds approach zero, Special Relativity tends towards equivalence with [[Newton's Laws of Motion]]. Special Relativity was developed by [[Hendrik Lorentz]], [[Henri Poincaré]], and Hermann Minkowski,<ref>"German mathematician who developed the geometrical theory of numbers and who made numerous contributions to number theory, mathematical physics, and the theory of relativity." [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9052860/Hermann-Minkowski Hermann Minkowski -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia]</ref><ref>[http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Minkowski.html Hermann Minkowski, Biography]</ref> and [[Albert Einstein]].

*'''[[General theory of relativity|General Relativity]]''' (GR) is a theory which explains the laws of motion as viewed from accelerating reference frames and includes a geometric explanation for gravity. This theory was developed by [[David Hilbert]] and [[Albert Einstein]] as a generalization of the postulates of Special Relativity.<ref>"[T]he German mathematician David Hilbert submitted an article containing the correct field equations for general relativity five days before Einstein."[http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/physics/relativity/history-1.html Nobel Prize historical account]</ref> A dramatic but later discredited claim by Sir [[Arthur Eddington]] of experimental proof of General Relativity in 1919 made Einstein a household name.

These theories have augmented earlier approaches, such as [[Galilean Relativity]].

The theory of relativity is defended with religious-like zeal, such that no college faculty tenure, Ph.D degree, or Nobel Prize is ever awarded to anyone who dares criticize the theory, as the example of denying a Nobel Prize to the most accomplished physicist of the 20th century, [[Robert Dicke]], illustrates. Another critic of the theory was Louis Essen [1908-1997], the man credited with determining the speed of light. He wrote many fiery papers against it such as ''Relativity and Time Signals''<ref>http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Journal%20Reprints-Relativity%20Theory/Download/3297</ref> and ''Relativity - Joke or Swindle?''.<ref>http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/Essen-L.htm</ref> Perhaps the most famous website opposing relativity is this one, with its [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] page. The cornerstone item in that page involves the experimental measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury that show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.

The theory of relativity have discontinuities whereby the limit of a physical quantity as a variable (such as mass or velocity) approaches a fixed value is not the same as the physical quantity at the fixed value. For example, the limit of momentum as mass approaches 0 and velocity approaches the speed of light is not equal to the momentum of (massless) light.<ref>Discontinuities in General Relativity are also well-recognized. See, e.g., [http://www.springerlink.com/content/u47l341u2q555455/]</ref>

The theory of relativity consist of complex mathematical equations relying on several hypotheses. For example, at Hofstra University general relativity is taught as part of an upperclass math course on differential geometry, based on three stated assumptions.<ref>http://people.hofstra.edu/Stefan_Waner/diff_geom/tc.html</ref> Special relativity assumes that all observers in inertial frames of reference will measure the same value for the speed of light, '''c''' and that all inertial frames of reference are equivalent. These hypotheses that can never be fully tested. Relativity rejects Newton's [[action at a distance]], which is basic to Newtonian gravity and also found to be a consequence of [[quantum mechanics]]. The mathematics of relativity assume no exceptions, yet in the time period immediately following the origin of the universe the relativity equations could not possibly have been valid, since quantum effects would not be negligible (in the same way non-relativistic quantum mechanics is not valid when dealing with particles traveling near the speed of light).

The "continuous" nature of space and time postulated by relativity is in conflict with the "discrete" nature in [[quantum mechanics]],<ref>For example, Relativity claims that space and time are smooth and continuous, while [[quantum mechanics]] suggests otherwise. [http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astronomy/2010/1025/Is-the-universe-a-big-hologram-This-device-could-find-out.] Relativity also denies [[action-at-a-distance]], while quantum mechanics suggests otherwise. Relativity denies any role for chance, while quantum mechanics is heavily dependent on it.</ref> and although theories like [[string theory]] and [[quantum field theory]] have attempted to unify relativity and quantum mechanics, neither has been entirely successful or proven.

Unlike [[Classical mechanics|Newtonian physics]], in which space and time intervals are each invariant as seen by all observers, in SR the only invariant quantity is a quadratic combination of space and time intervals (x2 - c2 t2). The instantaneous transmission of Newtonian gravitational effects also contradicts relativity.

In quantum mechanics, the [[uncertainty principle]] suggests that virtual particles can sometimes travel faster than the speed of light which would violate causality, but "[t]he only known way to resolve this tension involves introducing the idea of antiparticles."<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2004/wilczek-lecture.pdf (p. 102)</ref> Consequently, in 1928 Paul Dirac derived the Dirac equation, one of the first quantum mechanical equations compatible with special relativity, by which Dirac predicted the existence of antimatter. Four years later, antimatter (the positron) was discovered by Carl Anderson, as successfully predicted by relativistic quantum mechanics. [[Quantum field theory]], a generalization of quantum mechanics, is fully compatible with special relativity but not with general relativity, and still lacks a vital piece: evidence of the [[graviton]].

A famous critic of Theory of relativity is [[Nikola Tesla]], who called it a "...magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king ... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists, not scientists...".<ref>[http://www.plasmacosmology.net/tesla.html New York Times, July 11, 1935, p23, c8]</ref>

== Special Relativity ==
Lorentz and Poincaré developed Special Relativity as way of understanding how Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism could be valid in different frames of reference. Einstein famously published an explanation of Poincaré's theory in terms of two assumptions (postulates):

# ''The [[speed of light]] is constant for all (inertial) observers, regardless of their velocities relative to each other.''
# ''The laws of physics are identical in all inertial reference frames.''

In layman's terms, these two assumptions can be restated as:
# It is impossible ever to transmit information faster than the speed of light.<ref>This assumption is commonly restated in this manner. For example, a discussion of hypothetical [[tachyons]] talks "about using tachyons to transmit information faster than the speed of light, '''in violation of Special Relativity'''."[http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html] However, there is some question whether the Theory of Special Relativity really restricts faster-than-light communication of information.</ref>
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, in every location throughout the universe.
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, no matter how fast something is traveling (in the absence of acceleration).

Or, in more concise, clearer terms, these assumptions are this:

#there is no [[action at a distance]] (because that would make observations dependent on the frame of reference)
#space and time are completely symmetric throughout the universe (because otherwise frames of reference would not be interchangeable)

When the assumptions are stated clearly as above, the weaknesses in the theory are more apparent. There “is” action at a distance in [[quantum entanglement]] and apparently also in gravity, as no gravitons can be found. However, no information has yet been transmitted via quantum entanglement, so while non-locality violates the spirit of relativity it is consistent with it if relativity is limited to the transmission of information. [[Quantum field theory]], an attempt to partially reconcile [[quantum mechanics]] with relativity, is incomplete at best. As to the second assumption, it is contrary to the [[arrow of time]], which illustrates the lack of symmetry in time. Logical defects include the incoherence of relativistic mass (see discussion below) and the lack of relativistic constraints near the beginning the universe (see above).

Special Relativity (SR) was initially developed by [[Henri Poincaré]] and [[Hendrik Lorentz]], working on problems in electrodynamics and the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]], which had not found any sign of Earth's orbital motion through the [[aether (science)|luminiferous aether]], which was believed to be the substance which carried electromagnetic waves. Special relativity alters [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion by assuming that the speed of light will be the same for all observers, despite their relative velocities and the source of the light. (Therefore, if A sends a beam of light to B, and both measure the speed, it will be the same for both, no matter what the relative velocity of A and B. In Newtonian/Galilean mechanics, If A sends a physical object at a particular velocity towards B, and nothing slows it, the velocity of the object relative to B depends on the velocities of the object and of B relative to A.)

At low speeds (relative to light-speed), the Lorentz-Poincaré relativity equations are equivalent to Newton's equations. The media-promoted equation ''[[E=mc²]]'', implausibly suggests a relationship between typically unrelated concepts of energy, the rest mass of a body and the speed of light.

Under relativity, particles at low mass and low speed can be accurately approximated by [[classical mechanics]] (such as [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion). At the two extremes, modeling the behavior of electrons requires that relativistic effects be taken into account (the chemically significant phenomenon of electron spin arises from relativity), and the course of light passing through a region containing many massive bodies such as galaxies will be distorted ([[classical mechanics]], in which light travels in straight lines, does not predict this). These are both experimentally confirmed (electron spin was known before relativity arose, and telescopic observations confirm that galactic clusters distort the paths of the light passing through them).

Many scientists have indicated problems with the postulates of special relativity. Paul Davies, formerly of Macquarie University and now at the University of Arizona believes that the speed of light has changed over time. Since the speed of light is a constant speed 'c' this indicates problems with the theory [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2181455.stm light speed]. Other engineers and scientists have written about problems in the basic set of special relativity equations. Based on the ideas of not Einstein but of the scientist Fitzgerald as well as others, a length contraction effect was predicted as an explanation of the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment to detect Earth's orbital motion. This idea was taken up by Hendrik Lorentz and shown by others to be a useful mechanism by which theory could be forced into conformance with experimental results. However, in 2005, Michael Strauss a computer engineer invalidated much of Special Relativity theory by showing clear contradictions in the theory. [http://www.relativitycollapse.com relativity]

== General Relativity ==

::::''See the [[General theory of relativity]] page for more in-depth coverage of this topic.''

General Relativity is a theory of gravity that is compatible with Special Relativity. Einstein explains a thought experiment involving two elevators. The first elevator is stationary on the Earth, while the other is being pulled through space at a constant acceleration of g. Einstein realized that any physical experiment carried out in the elevators would give the same result. This realization is known as the equivalence principle and it states that accelerating frames of reference and gravitational fields are indistinguishable. General Relativity is the theory of gravity that incorporates Special Relativity and the equivalence principle.

General Relativity is a mathematical extension of Special Relativity. GR views space-time as a 4-dimensional [[manifold]], which looks locally like [[Minkowski space]], and which acquires [[curvature]] due to the presence of massive bodies. Thus, near massive bodies, the geometry of space-time differs to a large degree from [[Euclidean geometry]]: for example, the sum of the angles in a triangle is not exactly 180 degrees. Just as in classical physics, objects travel along [[geodesic]]s in the absence of external forces. Importantly though, near a massive body, geodesics are no longer straight lines. It is this phenomenon of objects traveling along geodesics in a curved spacetime that accounts for gravity.

The anomalous precession of Mercury's [[perihelion]] seems to support the Theory of General Relativity, though that is disputed on the[[Counterexamples to Relativity]] page. Keep in mind that the precession in question is the ''"anomalous"''
precession after the effects of other planets' gravitation action has been compensated for. Those other effects are much larger, and are purely Newtonian in nature. There was another explanation based on Newtonian gravity, involving a slight alteration to the precise inverse-square relation of Newtonian gravity to distance, but it was discarded when it gave very bad results for the Moon's orbit.

British Historian Paul Johnson declares the turning point in 20th century to have been when fellow Briton Sir [[Arthur Eddington]], an esteemed English astronomer, ventured out on a boat off Africa in 1919 with a local Army unit to observe the bending of starlight around the sun during a total eclipse. Upon his return to England declared that his observations proven the theory of relativity. In fact recent analysis of Eddington's work revealed that he was biased in selecting his data, and that overall his data were inconclusive about the theory of relativity. The prediction was later confirmed by more rigorous experiments, such as those performed by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]].<ref>[http://www.spaceimages.com/gravlen.html Hubble Gravitational Lens Photo]</ref><ref>[[Gravitational lensing]]</ref><ref>[http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/glgallery.html]</ref> Lorentz has this to say on the discrepancies between the empirical eclipse data and Einstein's predictions.

::''It indeed seems that the discrepancies may be ascribed to faults in observations, which supposition is supported by the fact that the observations at Prince's Island, which, it is true, did not turn out quite as well as those mentioned above, gave the result, of 1.64, somewhat lower than Einstein's figure.''<ref>Lorentz, H.A. [http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity]</ref>

The prediction that light is bent by gravity is predicted both by Newtonian physics and relativity, but relativity predicts a larger deflection.

Special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity where all gravitational fields are weak. Alternatively, special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity when all reference frames are inertial (non-accelerating and without gravity).

==Lack of evidence for Relativity==
The Theory of relativity assumes that time is symmetric just as space is, but the biggest early promoter of relativity, Arthur Eddington, coined the term "[[arrow of time]]" admitting how time is ''not'' symmetric but is directional. The passage of time is tied to an increase in disorder, or [[entropy]]. The Theory of relativity cannot explain this, and implicitly denies it, specifically allowing for theoretical time travel (e.g., [[wormholes]]) and different rates of passage of time based on velocity and acceleration.

Claims that relativity was used to develop the [[Global Positioning System]] ([[GPS]]) are false. A 1996 article explains:

:"The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein's general theory of relativity would seem to require - transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter - less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth."<ref>http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf</ref><ref>Some do claim that relativity is "vital" to GPS even though GPS developed independently of theoretical predictions and theoreticians disagree about how the relativistic effects for GPS should be calculated. ''See id. See also'' [http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR614/MR614.appb.pdf]</ref>

This article, which was published in 1996, goes on to propose relativistic corrections that might be used to design more accurate GPS systems. Clocks on board GPS satellites require adjustments to their clock frequencies if they are to be synchronized with those on the surface of the Earth.

Tom Van Flandern, an astronomer hired to work on GPS in the late 1990s, concluded that "[t]he GPS programmers don't need relativity." He was quoted as saying that the GPS programmers "have basically blown off Einstein."<ref>http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/einstein/index.html See also [http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP], where Van Flandern discusses how relativistic corrections might improve GPS accuracy.</ref> Asynchronization can be easily addressed through communications between the satellites and ground stations, so it is unclear why any theory would be needed for GPS. While Van Flandern believed that relativity is unnecessary for GPS, he also asserted that observations of GPS satellites supported both general and special relativity, writing that "we can assert with confidence that the predictions of relativity are confirmed to high accuracy over time periods of many days," with unrelated factors interfering with longer-term observations.<ref>http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp</ref>

Some internet articles claim that GPS timing differences ''confirm'' the Theory of Relativity or its Lorentzian counterpart (which uses a preferred frame of reference). GPS clocks run slower in the weaker gravitation field of the satellites than on ground stations on Earth, with the effects predicted by general relativity far outweighing the effects predicted by special relativity. However, the articles claiming that the slower GPS satellite clocks confirm relativity do not address the effect, if any, of the weaker gravitational force under Newton's theory on the GPS satellite clocks, likely because in Newtonian Mechanics every clock in the universe keeps time at the same rate regardless of velocity, acceleration, or the presence or absence of force.

Currently, GPS satellites are synchronized to Coordinated Universal Time by radio signals from the ground; therefore, they cannot currently be used to test general relativity.<ref>[http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html "General Relativity in the Global Positioning System."] Neil Ashby, U. of Colorado</ref>

There are claims that the effects of relativity have been observed with the frequency shift of the signal being sent back to [[Earth]] several times as various spacecraft have dipped into the gravity wells around massive objects such as the [[sun]] (see image at right)<ref>[http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press-releases-03/20031002-pr-a.cfm Saturn-Bound Spacecraft Tests Einstein's Theory]</ref> or Saturn.<ref>[http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12517102.600-science-encounter-with-saturn-confirms-relativity-theory.html Encounter with Saturn confirms relativity theory]</ref> A satellite called [[Gravity Probe B]] was put in orbit about the Earth to examine the effects of frame dragging and geodetic warping of space,<ref>[http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/index.html NASA Gravity Probe B mission page]</ref><ref>[http://einstein.stanford.edu/ Gravity Probe B project page]</ref> but the results were inconclusive. Note, however, that Newtonian mechanics also predicts deflection of light by gravity, and in the initial theory of relativity it predicted the same amount of deflection, but only if we treat light as capable of being accelerated and decelerated like ordinary matter, which is contrary to all measurements and observations to date.<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm</ref> Adjustments to the theory of relativity resulted in a prediction of a greater deflection of light than that predicated by Newtonian mechanics, though it is debatable how much deflection Newtonian mechanics should predict.

None of the NASA spacecraft incorporates predictions of relativity into their own timing mechanisms, as Newtonian mechanics is adequate even for probes sent deep into space so long as they do not undergo accelerations near the speed of light or enter any massive gravity wells.<ref>There is no reported reliance on relativity by any space probe.</ref>

A decade of observation of the [[pulsar]] pair [[PSR 1913 16|PSR B1913+16]] detected a decline in its orbital period, which was attributed to a loss in energy by the system. It is impossible to measure the masses of the pulsars, their accelerations relative to the observers, or other fundamental parameters. Professors Joseph Taylor and Russell Hulse, who discovered the binary pulsar, found that physical values could be assigned to the pulsars to make the observed decline in orbital period consistent with the Theory of General Relativity, and for this they were awarded the 1993 [[Nobel Prize]] for Physics, which is the only award ever given by the Nobel committee for the Theory of Relativity.<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1993/press.html</ref> In 2004, Professor Taylor utilized a correction to the derivative of the orbital period to fit subsequent data better to the theory. At most, assumptions can be made and altered to fit the data to the theory, rather than the data confirming the theory.

The [[perihelion]] of Mercury's [[orbit]] [[precession|precesses]] at a measurable rate, but even after accounting for gravitational perturbations caused all other planets in the [[solar system]], Newton's theory (assuming a precise inverse-square relationship for distance) predicts a rate of precession that differs from the measured rate by approximately 43 [[arcsecond]]s per century. General relativity was developed in part to provide an estimate for this rate of precession that better matches observations.<ref>http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html#SECTION032121000000000000000</ref><ref>http://www.alberteinstein.info/gallery/pdf/CP6Doc30_English_pp146-200.pdf</ref><ref>http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/lectures/node117.html</ref> Newton's theory can also explain this perihelion by making tiny adjustments to parameters in the gravitational equation.

General relativity predicts twice as much bending in light as it passes near massive objects than Newton's theory might predict.<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm</ref> This phenomenon is known as [[gravitational lensing]]. A large number of instances of gravitational lensing have been observed, and it is now a standard astronomical tool.<ref>http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/news/grav_lens.html</ref><ref>http://astro.berkeley.edu/~jcohn/lens.html</ref><ref>http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/glgallery.html</ref> Note, however, that the extent of bending of light predicted by Newton's theory is open to debate, and depends on assumptions about the nature of light for gravitational purposes.<ref>http://cosmictimes.gsfc.nasa.gov/1919/guide/gravity_bends_starlight.html</ref>

In 1972, scientists flew extremely accurate clocks ("atomic clocks") around the world in both directions on commercial airlines, and claimed to observe relativistic time dilation; the eastbound clock gained 273 ns and the westbound clock lost 59 ns, matching the predictions of general relativity to within experimental accuracy.<ref>[http://www.answers.com/topic/hafele-keating-experiment Hafele-Keating Experiment]</ref> However, the inventor of the atomic clock, Louis Essen, declared that the experiment was inaccurate.<ref>Louis Essen, Electron. Wireless World 94 (1988) 238.</ref> Dr A. G. Kelly examined the raw data from the experiment and declared it inconclusive.<ref>A. G. Kelly,Reliability of Relativistic Effect Tests on Airborne Clocks, Monograph No.3 Feb.1996, The Institution of Engineers of Ireland, ISBN 1-898012-22-9</ref> The Nobel Committee chose not to honor this experiment for the significance that was claimed.

Despite [[censorship]] of dissent about relativity, evidence contrary to the theory is discussed outside of [[liberal]] universities.<ref>http://scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=8&idContribution=922</ref>

==Experiments that Fail to Prove Relativity==

Predictions of general relativity turn out to be obscure and difficult to test. The two most famous predictions were the bending of light in a gravitational field and the precession of the perihelia of orbiting planets.

*The first of these was famously tested during a total eclipse in 1919. That test was somewhat muddled by an incorrect initial calculation, by several people including Einstein himself, of what the effect would be, and some "cherry picking" of the data to be used.<ref>''Einstein's Luck'', John Waller, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-860719-9</ref> The data selection could be considered "manipulation" or "fudging", by a person (Arthur Eddington) who had a personal stake in the outcome. His analysis techniques would not pass muster today.

:It should be noted that pre-relativistic (Newtonian) physics may also predict a bending, of half the observed value, depending on whether one uses the 17th century "corpuscular" formulation or the 19th century "wave" formulation.

:Nevertheless, it has been verified with ever-increasing precision in subsequent eclipses, and in the observations of quasar 3C273.

*The second "classical" test of general relativity was the advance of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury. There are many complex effects contributing to this, including gravitational perturbations from other planets and the effect of the oblateness of the Sun. These are hard to calculate accurately, but, by 1900 it was known quite accurately that there was an "anomalous" precession, that is, a precession beyond all other known effects, of 43 arc seconds per century. This is a very tiny effect, but astronomical measurements were sufficiently accurate by that time to show it clearly.

:Increasingly precise measurements of the precession demonstrate that it conflicts with General Relativity, despite claims of relativists for decades that it predicted the precession accurately in the amount of <math>3{}v^2/c^2</math> revolutions per planet's "year", where <math>v</math> is the planet's average orbital speed.<ref>That is a simple approximation, designed to relate the precession to the planet's speed relative to the speed of light. A more accurate approximation is <math>\frac{3GM}{c^2 a(1-e^2)}</math>, where a is the semi-major axis and e is the eccentricity.</ref> The conflict is greater than the margin of error, and many relativists avoid the discrepancy rather than address it.

==Experimental and Observational Evidence Confirming Relativity==

The different effects predicted by special relativity, compared to classical formulations, are extremely tiny. Most relativistic effects are negligible at the speeds of ordinary phenomena observed by humans. The effects only become significant when the speeds involved are a significant fraction of the speed of light, which is <math>3 \times 10^8</math> meters per second—such speeds are called ''relativistic''. (However, it's worth noting that ordinary magnetism can be considered an effect of relativity, dictated by the need for electrostatic theory to be correct under relativity. The speed of light in fact appears in the formulas ([[Maxwell's Equations]]) governing electricity and magnetism, though these equations were developed long before relativity was proposed.)

Because the effects of relativity are so tiny, scientists have been devising sophisticated and sensitive tests ever since the theory was formulated in 1905.

The most famous experiment, and the one that is commonly cited in textbooks as the experiment that established the case for relativity,<ref>Though relativity did not actually originate from this experiment</ref> was the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]]. This showed that all observers will obtain the same measured value for the speed of light (3x108 meters per second) no matter what their state of motion. This is the first of the two fundamental principles:
#''The [[speed of light]] is constant for all observers, regardless of their velocities relative to each other.''
#''The laws of physics are identical in all reference frames.''
(The second is just a restatement of Galilean relativity, that is, the "common sense" that had been accepted for centuries.)
A naive "common sense" interpretation of Galilean relativity would require that measurements of the speed of light (or anything else) by different observers would get results that differ by the observers' relative speeds, and hence that principle #1 can't be true. Special relativity fixes this apparent paradox.

All of special relativity derives for these two principles, plus assumptions of exact conservation of momentum and energy in all cases.

*At the end of Einstein's original 1905 paper [http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/ "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend its Energy Content?"], he speculates on the possibility that the equation <math>E = m c^2</math>, which would normally be very hard to verify, could be verified with the extremely high energies of the newly discovered phenomenon of radioactivity.<ref>This equation is not related to [[quantum mechanics]].</ref> In the 1910s, with the invention of the mass spectrometer, it became possible to measure masses of nuclei accurately. This led to the clearing up of the mystery of atomic masses not being exact integers,and strongly suggested the existence of a "mass defect" (or "packing fraction") consistent with the mass-energy equivalence. In the 1930s, experiments with known nuclear reactions showed a very accurate correlation between the masses of the nuclei involved and the energy released. See [[Quantitative Analysis of Alpha Decay]].

*Another prediction of special relativity was time dilation in rapidly moving objects. This effect was most famously verified in the anomalously slow decay of relativistic cosmic muons.<ref>Some have suggested that other explanations are possible for this effect. We are trying to track this down.</ref> Time dilation has since been verified many times, and is routinely taken into account in all high-energy nuclear physics experiments, as in Hadron collision experiments.<ref>Experiments specifically designed to check dilation are rarely conducted any more.</ref>

[[Image:Cassini-science-289.jpg|right|thumb|The Shapiro effect: A spacecraft signal dipping into a gravity well around the [[Sun]] is delayed slightly.]]
As the 20th century progressed, tests of general relativity were proposed.

*One important "classical" test of general relativity was the advance of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury. There are many complex effects contributing to this, including gravitational perturbations from other planets and the effect of the oblateness of the Sun. These are hard to calculate accurately, but, by 1900 it was known quite accurately that there was an "anomalous" precession, that is, a precession beyond all other known effects, of 43 arc seconds per century. This is a very tiny effect, but astronomical measurements were sufficiently accurate by that time to show it clearly.

:This created quite a problem—physicists by then were accustomed to having their theories check out very accurately. One proposal that was made, by Simon Newcomb and Asaph Hall, was that the exponent of the radius in the gravitational formula wasn't exactly 2. He showed that, by choosing an exponent of <math>2+\delta</math>, the precession, as a fraction of a full orbit per planet's year, is <math>\delta/2</math>. By setting <math>\delta</math> to .000000157, that is, an exponent of 2.000000157, Newcomb was able to get a precession of .000000078 revolutions per Mercury year, or 43 arcseconds per Earth year. Whatever value is chosen for <math>\delta\,</math>, it gives the same precession, per revolution, for all orbiting bodies, but gravitational effects from other planets diminish that effect the further the planet is from the sun.

:A good approximation for the precession under general relativity is <math>\frac{3GM}{c^2 a(1-e^2)}</math> revolutions per planet's "year", where a is the semi-major axis and e is the eccentricity. A simpler but less accurate one is <math>3{}v^2/c^2</math>, where <math>v</math> is the planet's average orbital speed.

:While Newcomb's theory, and general relativity, don't lead to closed-form solutions, both theories can be solved numerically to as much precision as one desires.

:The following table shows some approximate parameters for the planets. Note that Mercury has the smallest orbit, and the fastest speed. Precession of planets other than Mercury is extremely hard to measure, but measurements of the actual anomalous precessions are in good agreement.<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Planet
!Period, seconds x 106
!Semimajor axis, meters x 109
!Speed, meters/second x 103
!Gravitational force, Newtons per kilogram
!Anomalous precession, arcseconds per (Earth) century, pure Newtonian mechanics
!Anomalous precession, Newtonian with exponent of 2.000000157
!Anomalous precession, general relativity
!Measured anomalous precession (estimated uncertainty)<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm</ref>
|-
|Mercury
|7.57
|58.9
|48
|.039
|0
|43
|43
|43.5(5)
|-
|Venus
|19.6
|108
|35
|.011
|0
|16.6
|9
|8(5)
|-
|Earth
|31.6
|150
|30
|.006
|0
|10.3
|4
|5(1)
|-
|Mars
|59.3
|227.9
|24
|.0025
|0
|5.5
|1.4
|
|-
|Jupiter
|374
|778.4
|13
|.0002
|0
|0.87
|0.07
|
|-
|Saturn
|929
|1426
|9.7
|.00006
|0
|0.35
|0.014
|
|-
|Uranus
|2651
|2870
|6.8
|.000016
|0
|0.12
|0.002
|
|-
|Neptune
|5200
|4498
|5.5
|.000007
|0
|0.063
|0.0008
|
|}

:Considering only the ''anomalous'' precession, that is, the precession that remains after all known other factors (other planets and asteroids, solar oblateness) have been accounted for, and using very accurate calculations rather than the approximations given above, general relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04 arcseconds per century. Some observed values, as of 2008, are:
::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijpers 2008]]
:These error bars, and that of the general relativity prediction, all overlap.

*Another is the ''Shapiro effect'', involving time delay in radio signals passing through the gravity well of the Sun or a planet. Various spacecraft have confirmed this.

*Another is ''gravitational time dilation''. This is an effect separate from the time dilation of special relativity. It was tested by the Pound-Rebka experiment in 1959.

*Later in the 20th century, even more subtle phenomena were tested. One was the phenomenon of ''gravitational radiation'', or "gravitational waves". These waves are incredibly difficult to observe, and had never been observed until 2015. But extremely dense binary pulsars radiate gravitational waves with sufficient energy loss that, even though we can't detect the waves from Earth, we can see the effect of the energy loss from the radiation. The extreme precision of the timing of pulses from pulsars makes it possible to observe their energy loss with great accuracy. Observations by Hulse and Taylor of the pulsar pair known as B1913+16, if assumptions are made,<ref>Similar to the way Kepler chose orbital parameters to fit observed planetary motion to his theory</ref> could make the energy loss appear consistent with the predicted radiation. The rotating pulsars have moved such that Earth is now out of the beams, so those observations have been discontinued.

*In late 2015 (and announced in 2016), the LIGO instruments directly detected gravitational waves. See [[Gravitational waves]].

*An additional test of general relativity was performed with radio signals to the Cassini spacecraft.<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6956/full/nature01997.html</ref>

*Two other effects, ''geodetic precession'' (also known as "de Sitter precession"), and ''frame dragging'' (also known as the "Lense-Thirring effect") were tested by the "Gravity Probe B" satellite early in the 21st century.<ref>http://prl.aps.org/accepted/L/ea070Y8dQ491d22a28828c95f660a57ac82e7d8c0</ref><ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/306430</ref><ref>http://www.nap.edu/html/gpb/summary.html</ref><ref>http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/73870/title/Gravity_Probe_B_finally_pays_off_</ref><ref>http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/</ref><ref>http://einstein.stanford.edu/</ref><ref>http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/the-gravity-probe-b-bailout</ref><ref>http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/06/nasa-concludes-gravity-probe-b-space-time-experiment-proves-e/</ref> The precision required to observe this was phenomenal. The results were announced on May 4, 2011.

{{clear}}

==Predicted consequences of the Theories==
===Time dilation===

[[Image:Light cone.png|right|thumb|Light-cone diagram]]
One important consequence of SR's postulates is that an observer in one reference frame will observe a clock in another frame to be "ticking" more slowly than in the observer's own frame. This can be proven mathematically using basic geometry, if the postulates are physically true without exception.

The length of an event <math>t</math>, as seen by a (relative) stationary observer observing an event is given by:

<math> t = \frac{t_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math>

Where
:<math>t_0</math> is the "proper time" or the length of the event in the observed frame of reference.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

Evidence for time dilation was discovered by studying [[muon decay]]. [[Muons]] are [[subatomic]] [[particles]] with a very short [[halflife]] (1.53 microseconds at rest) and a very fast speed (0.994c). By putting muon detectors at the top (D1) and bottom (D2) of a mountain with a separation of 1900m, scientists could measure accurately the proportion of muons reaching the second detector in comparison to the first. The proportion found was different to the proportion that was calculated without taking into account relativistic effects.

Using the equation for [[exponential decay]], they could use this proportion to calculate the time taken for the muons to decay, relative to the muon. Then, using the time dilation equation they could then work out the dilated time. The dilated time showed a good correlation with the time it took the muons to reach the second sensor, thereby supporting the existence of time dilation.

The time taken for a muon to travel from D1 to D2 as measured by a stationary observer is:

<math> t = \frac{s}{v} = \frac{1900}{0.994\times(3\times10^{8})} = 6.37\mu\textrm{s} </math>

The fraction of muons arriving at D2 in comparison to D1 was 0.732. (Given by <math> \frac{N}{N_0} = 0.732 </math>)

Since (from the equation for exponential decay) <math> \frac{N}{N_{0}} = e^{-\lambda t_{0}} </math> then

<math> t_{0} = \frac {ln(0.732)}{ln (0.2)} \times 1.53\times 10^{-6} = 0.689\mu\textrm{s}</math>

This gives the time for the proportion of decay to occur for an observer who is stationary, relative to the muon.

Putting this into the time dilation equation gives:

<math> t = \frac{t_{0}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}} = \frac{0.689 \times{10^{-6}}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{0.994^{2}}{1^{2}}}} = 6.3\times 10^{-6}\textrm{s}</math>

This is in good agreement with the value calculated above, thereby providing evidence to support time dilation.

====Time Dilation and Creation Science====

{{main|Starlight problem#Humphreys.27_model}}

Creation scientists such as physicists Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] and Dr. [[John Hartnett]] have used relativistic time dilation to explain how the earth can be only 6,000 years old even though cosmological data (background radiation, supernovae, etc.) set a much older age for the universe.

===Length contraction===
When two inertial reference frames move past each other in a straight line with constant relative velocity, an observer in one reference frame would observe a metre rule in the other frame to be shorter along the direction parallel to the relative motion.

The length, <math>l</math>, of an object as seen by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:

<math> l = l_{0} \sqrt{1- \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}</math>

Where
:<math>l_0</math> is the "proper length" or the length of the object in the observed frame of reference.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

===Mass increase===

For decades the theory of relativity taught that as a body moves with increasing velocity its [[mass]] also increases.<ref>For example, this was taught as recently as in the 1991 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica.</ref>

Under this view, the mass, <math>m</math>, of an object as detected by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:

:<math> m = \frac{m_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math>

Where
:<math>m_0</math> is the "rest mass" or the mass of the object measured by an observer in the same reference frame as the object.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity of the object.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

Since speed is relative, it follows that two observers in different inertial reference frames may disagree on the mass and kinetic energy of a body. Since all inertial reference frames are treated on an equal footing, it follows that mass and energy are interchangeable.

In recent years most physicists have shifted away from Einstein's original reliance on relativistic mass and his suggestion that mass increases{{Citation needed|date=January 2012}}. Instead, most physicists today teach that

:<math>F=\frac{d}{d\tau} p</math>

where <math>p</math> is the momentum defined by <math>\gamma m v</math>, <math>\gamma</math> is the standard Lorentz factor, and <math>\tau</math> is the proper time. Force F defined this way is a vector and thus can handle the directional aspect of the relativistic effects better than the concept of relativistic mass can.

The abandonment by physicists of the concept of relativistic mass, however, has the consequence of undermining the traditional claim under relativity that

:<math>m - m_0 = \frac{E}{c^2}</math>

also popularly known as

:<math>E = m c^2</math>

Now a concept of the 4-momentum <math>p</math> of a particle is taught, such that the square of the magnitude of <math>p</math> satisfies:

<math>||p||^2 = -p_x^2-p_y^2-p_z^2+E^2 = m_0^2c^4</math>

in any inertial reference frame. The magnitude of the 4-momentum, in any inertial frame, equals the rest mass <math>m_0</math> of the particle (in units where <math>c=1</math>).

== Relativity in everyday life ==

Due to the small speeds and gravitational fields in normal life, relativistic phenomena such as time dilation and length contraction are rarely observed. However some things in everyday life can be explained using relativity:

*GPS, the satellites experience time dilation due to the difference in speed and the strength of gravitational field between the satellite and the ground. This is corrected by daily synchronisation between the ground and the atomic clocks in the satellites.
*While most elemental metals such as [[silver]], [[zinc]] and [[mercury]] have a silver/grey appearance, some metals like [[gold]] and [[copper]] do not. This difference can be explained using <ref>http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/golden_glow/relativistic quantum mechanics</ref>

== Paradoxes ==

The predictions of the theory of relativity throw up a number of apparent paradoxes and anomalies relating to the effects of time dilatation and length contraction. Whilst these paradoxes are consistent with the theory, they are contrary to everyday human experience and therefore can seem like impossibilities.

=== The Twin Paradox ===

The twin paradox is usually stated as a thought experiment involving two twins, one of whom is sent on a long journey in a spacecraft travelling at close to the speed of light, whilst the other remains on Earth. Time dilatation means that the travelling twin, on his return to Earth, is younger that the twin who has remained at home. However, because neither twin is in a special position - each being in an inertial frame of reference - the reverse must also be true, and so the twin remaining on Earth must be younger. Hence each twin is younger than the other - a paradox.

The problem can be resolved in two ways. One is to examine the effects of General Relativity: to come back to Earth, the travelling twin must undergo acceleration in order to reverse his course, causing temporal effects which make him permanently the younger. Alternatively, it can be explained entirely using Special Relativity and noting that the twins are not in symmetrical situations: the one on earth has remained in a single inertial frame of reference, whilst the travelling twin has travelled in two.<ref>http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm</ref>

=== The Ehrenfest Paradox ===

The Ehrenfest Paradox considers a rigid wheel or disc rotating a bout its axis at high speed (somewhat like a bicycle wheel spinning freely on its axle). The rim of the wheel travels at close to the speed of light and therefore undergoes length contraction, whereas the radius (the spokes, for the bicycle wheel) does not. Hence the circumference is no longer equal to 2<big><math>\pi</math></big>r, which is paradoxical.

The apparent paradox was finally resolved in 1975 by the Norwegian scientist [[Øyvind Grøn]].<ref>http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=224955</ref>

== Variable Speed of Light ==

The Theory of Relativity implies that physical constants like c, the speed of light in a vacuum, have remained constant. But at least one study suggests that physical constants, and possibly even the speed of light, have changed as the universe has aged.<ref>James Glanz and Dennis Overbye, "Cosmic Laws Like Speed of Light Might Be Changing, a Study Finds," August 15, 2001.[http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/15/science/15PHYS.html?ex=1185076800&en=d6467b6e3e346796&ei=5070]</ref>

"For the first time, scientists have experimentally demonstrated that sound pulses can travel at velocities faster than the speed of light, c. William Robertson's team from Middle Tennessee State University also showed that the group velocity of sound waves can become infinite, and even negative. ... Although such results may at first appear to violate special relativity (Einstein's law that no material object can exceed the speed of light), the actual significance of these experiments is a little different. These types of superluminal phenomena, Robertson et al. explain, violate neither causality nor special relativity, nor do they enable information to travel faster than c. In fact, theoretical work had predicted that the superluminal speed of the group velocity of sound waves should exist. 'The key to understanding this seeming paradox is that no wave energy exceeded the speed of light,' said Robertson."<ref>http://www.physorg.com/news88249076.html</ref>

"A team of researchers from the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) has successfully demonstrated, for the first time, that it is possible to control the speed of light – both slowing it down and speeding it up – in an optical fiber, using off-the-shelf instrumentation in normal environmental conditions. Their results, to be published in the August 22 issue of Applied Physics Letters, could have implications that range from optical [[computing]] to the fiber-optic telecommunications industry."<ref>http://www.scienceblog.com/light.html</ref> Both slowing down and speeding up of light within a substance other than a vacuum is made possible, because the light travels through the material, and that material affects the speed of light, i.e. a photon hits an electron, which then exits and emits a slightly lower energy photon out in the direction that the original photon was traveling, thus maintaining conservation of momentum. No matter how transparent an object may appear, it radically impacts the speed of the light traveling through it, as demonstrated by the refractive production of a rainbow by a crystal, which Newton himself discovered.

This apparent change in speed can be explained, however, by noting that the constant c refers to the speed of light in a vacuum, i.e., when it is unimpeded. The speed of light when traveling through physical media is, in fact, variable.

"A pair of German physicists claim to have broken the speed of light - an achievement that would undermine our entire understanding of space and time. ... Dr Nimtz told New Scientist magazine: 'For the time being, this is the only violation of special relativity that I know of.'"<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/16/scispeed116.xml</ref>

==Pending research==

Today some physicists are working on hypothesizing how general relativity might have related to the other three forces of nature during the first fraction of a second of the [[Big Bang]]. Two of the more commonly studied attempts are [[string theory]] and [[loop quantum gravity]], but they have failed to produce any evidence that science mandates a science must have, and both typically take large amounts of work to even conform to what scientists believe. Critics increasingly point out that string theory and loop quantum gravity are largely untestable and unfalsifiable, and thus potentially unscientific under the principles of science advanced by [[Karl Popper]].<ref>See, for example, ''Not Even Wrong'', by Peter Woit</ref>

Relativity continues to be tested and some physics professors remain skeptical of the theory, such as University of Maryland physics professor Carroll Alley, who served as the principle physicist on the Apollo lunar project.<ref>http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/21jul_llr.htm</ref>

== Political aspects of relativity ==

Some [[liberal]] politicians have extrapolated the theory of relativity to metaphorically justify their own political agendas. For example, [[Democratic]] [[President of the United States of America|President]] [[Barack Obama]] helped publish an article by liberal law professor [[Laurence Tribe]] to apply the relativistic concept of "curvature of space" to promote a broad legal right to [[abortion]].<ref>Tribe, acknowledging help by Obama, argued that the [[Constitution]] should be interpreted to establish a right to federally funded [[abortion]] and that, more generally, ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' does not go far enough. They insisted that a relativistic "curvature of space" could achieve this result by expanding application of the [[Constitution]] based on its impact on personal choice. "The ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' opinion ignored the way in which laws regulating pregnant women may shape the entire pattern of relationships among men, women, and children. It conceptualized abortion not in terms of the intensely public question of the subordination of women to men through the exploitation of pregnancy, but in terms of the purportedly private question of how women might make intimately personal decisions about their bodies and their lives. That vision described a part of the truth, but only what might be called the Newtonian part. ... [A] change in the surrounding legal setting can constitute state action that most threatens the sphere of personal choice. And it is a 'curved space' perspective on how law operates that leads one to focus less on the visible lines of legal force and more on how those lines are bent and directed by the law's geometry." Laurence H. Tribe, The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn from Modern Physics, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 16-17 (1989).</ref> As of June 2008, over 170 law review articles have cited this [[liberal]] application of the theory of relativity to legal arguments.<ref>Search conducted by [[User:Aschlafly]] in the LEXIS database "US Law Reviews and Journals, Combined," conducted June 1, 2008.</ref> Applications of the theory of relativity to change morality have also been common.<ref>"Mistakenly, in the minds of many, the theory of relativity became relativism."[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38081]</ref> Moreover, there is an unmistakable effort to censor or ostracize criticism of relativity.<ref>Although the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|liberally biased Wikipedia]] contains lengthy criticisms of the subjects of many entries, and even though publications like ''The Economist'' recognize the lack of scientific satisfaction in the theory (see, e.g., "Weighing the Universe," The Economist (Jan. 25, 2007)), Wikipedia's entry on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Relativity Theory of Relativity] omits one word of criticism.</ref>

Physicist [[Robert Dicke]] of Princeton University was a prominent critic<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html</ref> of general relativity, and Dicke's alternative "has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."<ref>"Initially a popular alternative to General Relativity, the Brans-Dicke theory lost favor as it became clear that omega must be very large-an artificial requirement in some views. Nevertheless, the theory has remained a paradigm for the introduction of scalar fields into gravitational theory, and as such has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."[http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/Essay_bekenstein.html]</ref> Despite being one of the most accomplished physicists in the 20th century, Dicke was repeatedly passed over for a [[Nobel Prize]], and in at least one case Dicke was insulted by the award being granted to others for contributions more properly credited to Dicke.

There has been little recognition by the Nobel Prize committee of either theory of relativity, and particularly scant recognition of the Theory of General Relativity. A dubious 1993 Nobel prize in physics was awarded Hulse and Taylor for supposedly finding the first evidence of gravitational waves in the orbital decay of the binary pulsar PSR1913+16.<ref>Weisberg, Joel M.; Taylor, Joseph H. (2003), "The Relativistic Binary Pulsar B1913+16"", in Bailes, M.; Nice, D. J.; Thorsett, S. E., Proceedings of "Radio Pulsars," Chania, Crete, August, 2002, ASP Conference Series</ref> A close reading of the paper reveals that that is based heavily on assumptions in trying to retrofit the data to the theory.

===Government Support for Relativistic research===
The Federal Government has funded the building of two gravity wave detectors: The first to test the principle, and the second (upgrade) to actually perform measurements. As a result of this work, on February 11, 2016, the LIGO team reported successful detection of gravitational waves caused by the merging of two black holes.<ref>https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160211</ref>

{{Relativity}}

==See also==
*[[Attempts to prove E=mc²]]
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]
*[[Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]
*[[Quantitative Analysis of Alpha Decay]]
*[[Gravitational waves]]

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Science]]

==External links ==
*[http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity, by H.A. Lorentz.]
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com Relativity Science Calculator - Learn Special Relativity Mathematics ] The mathematics of special relativity presented in as simple and comprehensive manner possible within philosophical and historical contexts.
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com/history_of_time_clocks.shtml Relativity Science Calculator - Philosophic Question: are clocks and time separable?]
*[http://www.relativityscience.com/twin_clock_paradox.shtml Relativity Science Calculator - Twin Clock Paradox]

Theory of relativity

2016-09-04T13:59:22Z

PeterHockey: Added new section

''See also [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].''

In physics, the '''theory of relativity''' is a scientific theory describing the effects due to the invariance of the speed of light. In particular, the meaning of space and time are altered by the motion of the observer. Relativity predicts phenomena such as time dilation and length contraction for observers moving relative to one another at very high ("relativistic") speed.

'''Relativity''' refers to two closely-related mathematical theories in [[physics]]:
[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|
*"I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional [[Atheism|atheist]] whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." - [[Albert Einstein]]<ref name="Isaacson390">Isaacson, Walter (2008). [http://books.google.com/books?id=cdxWNE7NY6QC&pg=PT390 ''Einstein: His Life and Universe''] (New York: Simon and Schuster), p. 390. Retrieved from GoogleBooks archive on February 19, 2015.</ref>]]
*'''[[Special theory of relativity|Special relativity]]''' (SR) is a theory which describes the laws of motion for non-accelerating bodies traveling at a significant fraction of the [[speed of light]]. As speeds approach zero, Special Relativity tends towards equivalence with [[Newton's Laws of Motion]]. Special Relativity was developed by [[Hendrik Lorentz]], [[Henri Poincaré]], and Hermann Minkowski,<ref>"German mathematician who developed the geometrical theory of numbers and who made numerous contributions to number theory, mathematical physics, and the theory of relativity." [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9052860/Hermann-Minkowski Hermann Minkowski -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia]</ref><ref>[http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Minkowski.html Hermann Minkowski, Biography]</ref> and [[Albert Einstein]].

*'''[[General theory of relativity|General Relativity]]''' (GR) is a theory which explains the laws of motion as viewed from accelerating reference frames and includes a geometric explanation for gravity. This theory was developed by [[David Hilbert]] and [[Albert Einstein]] as a generalization of the postulates of Special Relativity.<ref>"[T]he German mathematician David Hilbert submitted an article containing the correct field equations for general relativity five days before Einstein."[http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/physics/relativity/history-1.html Nobel Prize historical account]</ref> A dramatic but later discredited claim by Sir [[Arthur Eddington]] of experimental proof of General Relativity in 1919 made Einstein a household name.

These theories have augmented earlier approaches, such as [[Galilean Relativity]].

The theory of relativity is defended with religious-like zeal, such that no college faculty tenure, Ph.D degree, or Nobel Prize is ever awarded to anyone who dares criticize the theory, as the example of denying a Nobel Prize to the most accomplished physicist of the 20th century, [[Robert Dicke]], illustrates. Another critic of the theory was Louis Essen [1908-1997], the man credited with determining the speed of light. He wrote many fiery papers against it such as ''Relativity and Time Signals''<ref>http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Journal%20Reprints-Relativity%20Theory/Download/3297</ref> and ''Relativity - Joke or Swindle?''.<ref>http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/Essen-L.htm</ref> Perhaps the most famous website opposing relativity is this one, with its [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] page. The cornerstone item in that page involves the experimental measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury that show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.

The theory of relativity have discontinuities whereby the limit of a physical quantity as a variable (such as mass or velocity) approaches a fixed value is not the same as the physical quantity at the fixed value. For example, the limit of momentum as mass approaches 0 and velocity approaches the speed of light is not equal to the momentum of (massless) light.<ref>Discontinuities in General Relativity are also well-recognized. See, e.g., [http://www.springerlink.com/content/u47l341u2q555455/]</ref>

The theory of relativity consist of complex mathematical equations relying on several hypotheses. For example, at Hofstra University general relativity is taught as part of an upperclass math course on differential geometry, based on three stated assumptions.<ref>http://people.hofstra.edu/Stefan_Waner/diff_geom/tc.html</ref> Special relativity assumes that all observers in inertial frames of reference will measure the same value for the speed of light, '''c''' and that all inertial frames of reference are equivalent. These hypotheses that can never be fully tested. Relativity rejects Newton's [[action at a distance]], which is basic to Newtonian gravity and also found to be a consequence of [[quantum mechanics]]. The mathematics of relativity assume no exceptions, yet in the time period immediately following the origin of the universe the relativity equations could not possibly have been valid, since quantum effects would not be negligible (in the same way non-relativistic quantum mechanics is not valid when dealing with particles traveling near the speed of light).

The "continuous" nature of space and time postulated by relativity is in conflict with the "discrete" nature in [[quantum mechanics]],<ref>For example, Relativity claims that space and time are smooth and continuous, while [[quantum mechanics]] suggests otherwise. [http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astronomy/2010/1025/Is-the-universe-a-big-hologram-This-device-could-find-out.] Relativity also denies [[action-at-a-distance]], while quantum mechanics suggests otherwise. Relativity denies any role for chance, while quantum mechanics is heavily dependent on it.</ref> and although theories like [[string theory]] and [[quantum field theory]] have attempted to unify relativity and quantum mechanics, neither has been entirely successful or proven.

Unlike [[Classical mechanics|Newtonian physics]], in which space and time intervals are each invariant as seen by all observers, in SR the only invariant quantity is a quadratic combination of space and time intervals (x2 - c2 t2). The instantaneous transmission of Newtonian gravitational effects also contradicts relativity.

In quantum mechanics, the [[uncertainty principle]] suggests that virtual particles can sometimes travel faster than the speed of light which would violate causality, but "[t]he only known way to resolve this tension involves introducing the idea of antiparticles."<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2004/wilczek-lecture.pdf (p. 102)</ref> Consequently, in 1928 Paul Dirac derived the Dirac equation, one of the first quantum mechanical equations compatible with special relativity, by which Dirac predicted the existence of antimatter. Four years later, antimatter (the positron) was discovered by Carl Anderson, as successfully predicted by relativistic quantum mechanics. [[Quantum field theory]], a generalization of quantum mechanics, is fully compatible with special relativity but not with general relativity, and still lacks a vital piece: evidence of the [[graviton]].

A famous critic of Theory of relativity is [[Nikola Tesla]], who called it a "...magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king ... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists, not scientists...".<ref>[http://www.plasmacosmology.net/tesla.html New York Times, July 11, 1935, p23, c8]</ref>

== Special Relativity ==
Lorentz and Poincaré developed Special Relativity as way of understanding how Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism could be valid in different frames of reference. Einstein famously published an explanation of Poincaré's theory in terms of two assumptions (postulates):

# ''The [[speed of light]] is constant for all (inertial) observers, regardless of their velocities relative to each other.''
# ''The laws of physics are identical in all inertial reference frames.''

In layman's terms, these two assumptions can be restated as:
# It is impossible ever to transmit information faster than the speed of light.<ref>This assumption is commonly restated in this manner. For example, a discussion of hypothetical [[tachyons]] talks "about using tachyons to transmit information faster than the speed of light, '''in violation of Special Relativity'''."[http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html] However, there is some question whether the Theory of Special Relativity really restricts faster-than-light communication of information.</ref>
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, in every location throughout the universe.
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, no matter how fast something is traveling (in the absence of acceleration).

Or, in more concise, clearer terms, these assumptions are this:

#there is no [[action at a distance]] (because that would make observations dependent on the frame of reference)
#space and time are completely symmetric throughout the universe (because otherwise frames of reference would not be interchangeable)

When the assumptions are stated clearly as above, the weaknesses in the theory are more apparent. There “is” action at a distance in [[quantum entanglement]] and apparently also in gravity, as no gravitons can be found. However, no information has yet been transmitted via quantum entanglement, so while non-locality violates the spirit of relativity it is consistent with it if relativity is limited to the transmission of information. [[Quantum field theory]], an attempt to partially reconcile [[quantum mechanics]] with relativity, is incomplete at best. As to the second assumption, it is contrary to the [[arrow of time]], which illustrates the lack of symmetry in time. Logical defects include the incoherence of relativistic mass (see discussion below) and the lack of relativistic constraints near the beginning the universe (see above).

Special Relativity (SR) was initially developed by [[Henri Poincaré]] and [[Hendrik Lorentz]], working on problems in electrodynamics and the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]], which had not found any sign of Earth's orbital motion through the [[aether (science)|luminiferous aether]], which was believed to be the substance which carried electromagnetic waves. Special relativity alters [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion by assuming that the speed of light will be the same for all observers, despite their relative velocities and the source of the light. (Therefore, if A sends a beam of light to B, and both measure the speed, it will be the same for both, no matter what the relative velocity of A and B. In Newtonian/Galilean mechanics, If A sends a physical object at a particular velocity towards B, and nothing slows it, the velocity of the object relative to B depends on the velocities of the object and of B relative to A.)

At low speeds (relative to light-speed), the Lorentz-Poincaré relativity equations are equivalent to Newton's equations. The media-promoted equation ''[[E=mc²]]'', implausibly suggests a relationship between typically unrelated concepts of energy, the rest mass of a body and the speed of light.

Under relativity, particles at low mass and low speed can be accurately approximated by [[classical mechanics]] (such as [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion). At the two extremes, modeling the behavior of electrons requires that relativistic effects be taken into account (the chemically significant phenomenon of electron spin arises from relativity), and the course of light passing through a region containing many massive bodies such as galaxies will be distorted ([[classical mechanics]], in which light travels in straight lines, does not predict this). These are both experimentally confirmed (electron spin was known before relativity arose, and telescopic observations confirm that galactic clusters distort the paths of the light passing through them).

Many scientists have indicated problems with the postulates of special relativity. Paul Davies, formerly of Macquarie University and now at the University of Arizona believes that the speed of light has changed over time. Since the speed of light is a constant speed 'c' this indicates problems with the theory [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2181455.stm light speed]. Other engineers and scientists have written about problems in the basic set of special relativity equations. Based on the ideas of not Einstein but of the scientist Fitzgerald as well as others, a length contraction effect was predicted as an explanation of the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment to detect Earth's orbital motion. This idea was taken up by Hendrik Lorentz and shown by others to be a useful mechanism by which theory could be forced into conformance with experimental results. However, in 2005, Michael Strauss a computer engineer invalidated much of Special Relativity theory by showing clear contradictions in the theory. [http://www.relativitycollapse.com relativity]

== General Relativity ==

::::''See the [[General theory of relativity]] page for more in-depth coverage of this topic.''

General Relativity is a theory of gravity that is compatible with Special Relativity. Einstein explains a thought experiment involving two elevators. The first elevator is stationary on the Earth, while the other is being pulled through space at a constant acceleration of g. Einstein realized that any physical experiment carried out in the elevators would give the same result. This realization is known as the equivalence principle and it states that accelerating frames of reference and gravitational fields are indistinguishable. General Relativity is the theory of gravity that incorporates Special Relativity and the equivalence principle.

General Relativity is a mathematical extension of Special Relativity. GR views space-time as a 4-dimensional [[manifold]], which looks locally like [[Minkowski space]], and which acquires [[curvature]] due to the presence of massive bodies. Thus, near massive bodies, the geometry of space-time differs to a large degree from [[Euclidean geometry]]: for example, the sum of the angles in a triangle is not exactly 180 degrees. Just as in classical physics, objects travel along [[geodesic]]s in the absence of external forces. Importantly though, near a massive body, geodesics are no longer straight lines. It is this phenomenon of objects traveling along geodesics in a curved spacetime that accounts for gravity.

The anomalous precession of Mercury's [[perihelion]] seems to support the Theory of General Relativity, though that is disputed on the[[Counterexamples to Relativity]] page. Keep in mind that the precession in question is the ''"anomalous"''
precession after the effects of other planets' gravitation action has been compensated for. Those other effects are much larger, and are purely Newtonian in nature. There was another explanation based on Newtonian gravity, involving a slight alteration to the precise inverse-square relation of Newtonian gravity to distance, but it was discarded when it gave very bad results for the Moon's orbit.

British Historian Paul Johnson declares the turning point in 20th century to have been when fellow Briton Sir [[Arthur Eddington]], an esteemed English astronomer, ventured out on a boat off Africa in 1919 with a local Army unit to observe the bending of starlight around the sun during a total eclipse. Upon his return to England declared that his observations proven the theory of relativity. In fact recent analysis of Eddington's work revealed that he was biased in selecting his data, and that overall his data were inconclusive about the theory of relativity. The prediction was later confirmed by more rigorous experiments, such as those performed by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]].<ref>[http://www.spaceimages.com/gravlen.html Hubble Gravitational Lens Photo]</ref><ref>[[Gravitational lensing]]</ref><ref>[http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/glgallery.html]</ref> Lorentz has this to say on the discrepancies between the empirical eclipse data and Einstein's predictions.

::''It indeed seems that the discrepancies may be ascribed to faults in observations, which supposition is supported by the fact that the observations at Prince's Island, which, it is true, did not turn out quite as well as those mentioned above, gave the result, of 1.64, somewhat lower than Einstein's figure.''<ref>Lorentz, H.A. [http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity]</ref>

The prediction that light is bent by gravity is predicted both by Newtonian physics and relativity, but relativity predicts a larger deflection.

Special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity where all gravitational fields are weak. Alternatively, special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity when all reference frames are inertial (non-accelerating and without gravity).

==Lack of evidence for Relativity==
The Theory of relativity assumes that time is symmetric just as space is, but the biggest early promoter of relativity, Arthur Eddington, coined the term "[[arrow of time]]" admitting how time is ''not'' symmetric but is directional. The passage of time is tied to an increase in disorder, or [[entropy]]. The Theory of relativity cannot explain this, and implicitly denies it, specifically allowing for theoretical time travel (e.g., [[wormholes]]) and different rates of passage of time based on velocity and acceleration.

Claims that relativity was used to develop the [[Global Positioning System]] ([[GPS]]) are false. A 1996 article explains:

:"The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein's general theory of relativity would seem to require - transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter - less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth."<ref>http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf</ref><ref>Some do claim that relativity is "vital" to GPS even though GPS developed independently of theoretical predictions and theoreticians disagree about how the relativistic effects for GPS should be calculated. ''See id. See also'' [http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR614/MR614.appb.pdf]</ref>

This article, which was published in 1996, goes on to propose relativistic corrections that might be used to design more accurate GPS systems. Clocks on board GPS satellites require adjustments to their clock frequencies if they are to be synchronized with those on the surface of the Earth.

Tom Van Flandern, an astronomer hired to work on GPS in the late 1990s, concluded that "[t]he GPS programmers don't need relativity." He was quoted as saying that the GPS programmers "have basically blown off Einstein."<ref>http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/einstein/index.html See also [http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP], where Van Flandern discusses how relativistic corrections might improve GPS accuracy.</ref> Asynchronization can be easily addressed through communications between the satellites and ground stations, so it is unclear why any theory would be needed for GPS. While Van Flandern believed that relativity is unnecessary for GPS, he also asserted that observations of GPS satellites supported both general and special relativity, writing that "we can assert with confidence that the predictions of relativity are confirmed to high accuracy over time periods of many days," with unrelated factors interfering with longer-term observations.<ref>http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp</ref>

Some internet articles claim that GPS timing differences ''confirm'' the Theory of Relativity or its Lorentzian counterpart (which uses a preferred frame of reference). GPS clocks run slower in the weaker gravitation field of the satellites than on ground stations on Earth, with the effects predicted by general relativity far outweighing the effects predicted by special relativity. However, the articles claiming that the slower GPS satellite clocks confirm relativity do not address the effect, if any, of the weaker gravitational force under Newton's theory on the GPS satellite clocks, likely because in Newtonian Mechanics every clock in the universe keeps time at the same rate regardless of velocity, acceleration, or the presence or absence of force.

Currently, GPS satellites are synchronized to Coordinated Universal Time by radio signals from the ground; therefore, they cannot currently be used to test general relativity.<ref>[http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html "General Relativity in the Global Positioning System."] Neil Ashby, U. of Colorado</ref>

There are claims that the effects of relativity have been observed with the frequency shift of the signal being sent back to [[Earth]] several times as various spacecraft have dipped into the gravity wells around massive objects such as the [[sun]] (see image at right)<ref>[http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press-releases-03/20031002-pr-a.cfm Saturn-Bound Spacecraft Tests Einstein's Theory]</ref> or Saturn.<ref>[http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12517102.600-science-encounter-with-saturn-confirms-relativity-theory.html Encounter with Saturn confirms relativity theory]</ref> A satellite called [[Gravity Probe B]] was put in orbit about the Earth to examine the effects of frame dragging and geodetic warping of space,<ref>[http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/index.html NASA Gravity Probe B mission page]</ref><ref>[http://einstein.stanford.edu/ Gravity Probe B project page]</ref> but the results were inconclusive. Note, however, that Newtonian mechanics also predicts deflection of light by gravity, and in the initial theory of relativity it predicted the same amount of deflection, but only if we treat light as capable of being accelerated and decelerated like ordinary matter, which is contrary to all measurements and observations to date.<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm</ref> Adjustments to the theory of relativity resulted in a prediction of a greater deflection of light than that predicated by Newtonian mechanics, though it is debatable how much deflection Newtonian mechanics should predict.

None of the NASA spacecraft incorporates predictions of relativity into their own timing mechanisms, as Newtonian mechanics is adequate even for probes sent deep into space so long as they do not undergo accelerations near the speed of light or enter any massive gravity wells.<ref>There is no reported reliance on relativity by any space probe.</ref>

A decade of observation of the [[pulsar]] pair [[PSR 1913 16|PSR B1913+16]] detected a decline in its orbital period, which was attributed to a loss in energy by the system. It is impossible to measure the masses of the pulsars, their accelerations relative to the observers, or other fundamental parameters. Professors Joseph Taylor and Russell Hulse, who discovered the binary pulsar, found that physical values could be assigned to the pulsars to make the observed decline in orbital period consistent with the Theory of General Relativity, and for this they were awarded the 1993 [[Nobel Prize]] for Physics, which is the only award ever given by the Nobel committee for the Theory of Relativity.<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1993/press.html</ref> In 2004, Professor Taylor utilized a correction to the derivative of the orbital period to fit subsequent data better to the theory. At most, assumptions can be made and altered to fit the data to the theory, rather than the data confirming the theory.

The [[perihelion]] of Mercury's [[orbit]] [[precession|precesses]] at a measurable rate, but even after accounting for gravitational perturbations caused all other planets in the [[solar system]], Newton's theory (assuming a precise inverse-square relationship for distance) predicts a rate of precession that differs from the measured rate by approximately 43 [[arcsecond]]s per century. General relativity was developed in part to provide an estimate for this rate of precession that better matches observations.<ref>http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html#SECTION032121000000000000000</ref><ref>http://www.alberteinstein.info/gallery/pdf/CP6Doc30_English_pp146-200.pdf</ref><ref>http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/lectures/node117.html</ref> Newton's theory can also explain this perihelion by making tiny adjustments to parameters in the gravitational equation.

General relativity predicts twice as much bending in light as it passes near massive objects than Newton's theory might predict.<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm</ref> This phenomenon is known as [[gravitational lensing]]. A large number of instances of gravitational lensing have been observed, and it is now a standard astronomical tool.<ref>http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/news/grav_lens.html</ref><ref>http://astro.berkeley.edu/~jcohn/lens.html</ref><ref>http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/glgallery.html</ref> Note, however, that the extent of bending of light predicted by Newton's theory is open to debate, and depends on assumptions about the nature of light for gravitational purposes.<ref>http://cosmictimes.gsfc.nasa.gov/1919/guide/gravity_bends_starlight.html</ref>

In 1972, scientists flew extremely accurate clocks ("atomic clocks") around the world in both directions on commercial airlines, and claimed to observe relativistic time dilation; the eastbound clock gained 273 ns and the westbound clock lost 59 ns, matching the predictions of general relativity to within experimental accuracy.<ref>[http://www.answers.com/topic/hafele-keating-experiment Hafele-Keating Experiment]</ref> However, the inventor of the atomic clock, Louis Essen, declared that the experiment was inaccurate.<ref>Louis Essen, Electron. Wireless World 94 (1988) 238.</ref> Dr A. G. Kelly examined the raw data from the experiment and declared it inconclusive.<ref>A. G. Kelly,Reliability of Relativistic Effect Tests on Airborne Clocks, Monograph No.3 Feb.1996, The Institution of Engineers of Ireland, ISBN 1-898012-22-9</ref> The Nobel Committee chose not to honor this experiment for the significance that was claimed.

Despite [[censorship]] of dissent about relativity, evidence contrary to the theory is discussed outside of [[liberal]] universities.<ref>http://scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=8&idContribution=922</ref>

==Experiments that Fail to Prove Relativity==

Predictions of general relativity turn out to be obscure and difficult to test. The two most famous predictions were the bending of light in a gravitational field and the precession of the perihelia of orbiting planets.

*The first of these was famously tested during a total eclipse in 1919. That test was somewhat muddled by an incorrect initial calculation, by several people including Einstein himself, of what the effect would be, and some "cherry picking" of the data to be used.<ref>''Einstein's Luck'', John Waller, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-860719-9</ref> The data selection could be considered "manipulation" or "fudging", by a person (Arthur Eddington) who had a personal stake in the outcome. His analysis techniques would not pass muster today.

:It should be noted that pre-relativistic (Newtonian) physics may also predict a bending, of half the observed value, depending on whether one uses the 17th century "corpuscular" formulation or the 19th century "wave" formulation.

:Nevertheless, it has been verified with ever-increasing precision in subsequent eclipses, and in the observations of quasar 3C273.

*The second "classical" test of general relativity was the advance of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury. There are many complex effects contributing to this, including gravitational perturbations from other planets and the effect of the oblateness of the Sun. These are hard to calculate accurately, but, by 1900 it was known quite accurately that there was an "anomalous" precession, that is, a precession beyond all other known effects, of 43 arc seconds per century. This is a very tiny effect, but astronomical measurements were sufficiently accurate by that time to show it clearly.

:Increasingly precise measurements of the precession demonstrate that it conflicts with General Relativity, despite claims of relativists for decades that it predicted the precession accurately in the amount of <math>3{}v^2/c^2</math> revolutions per planet's "year", where <math>v</math> is the planet's average orbital speed.<ref>That is a simple approximation, designed to relate the precession to the planet's speed relative to the speed of light. A more accurate approximation is <math>\frac{3GM}{c^2 a(1-e^2)}</math>, where a is the semi-major axis and e is the eccentricity.</ref> The conflict is greater than the margin of error, and many relativists avoid the discrepancy rather than address it.

==Experimental and Observational Evidence Confirming Relativity==

The different effects predicted by special relativity, compared to classical formulations, are extremely tiny. Most relativistic effects are negligible at the speeds of ordinary phenomena observed by humans. The effects only become significant when the speeds involved are a significant fraction of the speed of light, which is <math>3 \times 10^8</math> meters per second—such speeds are called ''relativistic''. (However, it's worth noting that ordinary magnetism can be considered an effect of relativity, dictated by the need for electrostatic theory to be correct under relativity. The speed of light in fact appears in the formulas ([[Maxwell's Equations]]) governing electricity and magnetism, though these equations were developed long before relativity was proposed.)

Because the effects of relativity are so tiny, scientists have been devising sophisticated and sensitive tests ever since the theory was formulated in 1905.

The most famous experiment, and the one that is commonly cited in textbooks as the experiment that established the case for relativity,<ref>Though relativity did not actually originate from this experiment</ref> was the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]]. This showed that all observers will obtain the same measured value for the speed of light (3x108 meters per second) no matter what their state of motion. This is the first of the two fundamental principles:
#''The [[speed of light]] is constant for all observers, regardless of their velocities relative to each other.''
#''The laws of physics are identical in all reference frames.''
(The second is just a restatement of Galilean relativity, that is, the "common sense" that had been accepted for centuries.)
A naive "common sense" interpretation of Galilean relativity would require that measurements of the speed of light (or anything else) by different observers would get results that differ by the observers' relative speeds, and hence that principle #1 can't be true. Special relativity fixes this apparent paradox.

All of special relativity derives for these two principles, plus assumptions of exact conservation of momentum and energy in all cases.

*At the end of Einstein's original 1905 paper [http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/ "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend its Energy Content?"], he speculates on the possibility that the equation <math>E = m c^2</math>, which would normally be very hard to verify, could be verified with the extremely high energies of the newly discovered phenomenon of radioactivity.<ref>This equation is not related to [[quantum mechanics]].</ref> In the 1910s, with the invention of the mass spectrometer, it became possible to measure masses of nuclei accurately. This led to the clearing up of the mystery of atomic masses not being exact integers,and strongly suggested the existence of a "mass defect" (or "packing fraction") consistent with the mass-energy equivalence. In the 1930s, experiments with known nuclear reactions showed a very accurate correlation between the masses of the nuclei involved and the energy released. See [[Quantitative Analysis of Alpha Decay]].

*Another prediction of special relativity was time dilation in rapidly moving objects. This effect was most famously verified in the anomalously slow decay of relativistic cosmic muons.<ref>Some have suggested that other explanations are possible for this effect. We are trying to track this down.</ref> Time dilation has since been verified many times, and is routinely taken into account in all high-energy nuclear physics experiments, as in Hadron collision experiments.<ref>Experiments specifically designed to check dilation are rarely conducted any more.</ref>

[[Image:Cassini-science-289.jpg|right|thumb|The Shapiro effect: A spacecraft signal dipping into a gravity well around the [[Sun]] is delayed slightly.]]
As the 20th century progressed, tests of general relativity were proposed.

*One important "classical" test of general relativity was the advance of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury. There are many complex effects contributing to this, including gravitational perturbations from other planets and the effect of the oblateness of the Sun. These are hard to calculate accurately, but, by 1900 it was known quite accurately that there was an "anomalous" precession, that is, a precession beyond all other known effects, of 43 arc seconds per century. This is a very tiny effect, but astronomical measurements were sufficiently accurate by that time to show it clearly.

:This created quite a problem—physicists by then were accustomed to having their theories check out very accurately. One proposal that was made, by Simon Newcomb and Asaph Hall, was that the exponent of the radius in the gravitational formula wasn't exactly 2. He showed that, by choosing an exponent of <math>2+\delta</math>, the precession, as a fraction of a full orbit per planet's year, is <math>\delta/2</math>. By setting <math>\delta</math> to .000000157, that is, an exponent of 2.000000157, Newcomb was able to get a precession of .000000078 revolutions per Mercury year, or 43 arcseconds per Earth year. Whatever value is chosen for <math>\delta\,</math>, it gives the same precession, per revolution, for all orbiting bodies, but gravitational effects from other planets diminish that effect the further the planet is from the sun.

:A good approximation for the precession under general relativity is <math>\frac{3GM}{c^2 a(1-e^2)}</math> revolutions per planet's "year", where a is the semi-major axis and e is the eccentricity. A simpler but less accurate one is <math>3{}v^2/c^2</math>, where <math>v</math> is the planet's average orbital speed.

:While Newcomb's theory, and general relativity, don't lead to closed-form solutions, both theories can be solved numerically to as much precision as one desires.

:The following table shows some approximate parameters for the planets. Note that Mercury has the smallest orbit, and the fastest speed. Precession of planets other than Mercury is extremely hard to measure, but measurements of the actual anomalous precessions are in good agreement.<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Planet
!Period, seconds x 106
!Semimajor axis, meters x 109
!Speed, meters/second x 103
!Gravitational force, Newtons per kilogram
!Anomalous precession, arcseconds per (Earth) century, pure Newtonian mechanics
!Anomalous precession, Newtonian with exponent of 2.000000157
!Anomalous precession, general relativity
!Measured anomalous precession (estimated uncertainty)<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm</ref>
|-
|Mercury
|7.57
|58.9
|48
|.039
|0
|43
|43
|43.5(5)
|-
|Venus
|19.6
|108
|35
|.011
|0
|16.6
|9
|8(5)
|-
|Earth
|31.6
|150
|30
|.006
|0
|10.3
|4
|5(1)
|-
|Mars
|59.3
|227.9
|24
|.0025
|0
|5.5
|1.4
|
|-
|Jupiter
|374
|778.4
|13
|.0002
|0
|0.87
|0.07
|
|-
|Saturn
|929
|1426
|9.7
|.00006
|0
|0.35
|0.014
|
|-
|Uranus
|2651
|2870
|6.8
|.000016
|0
|0.12
|0.002
|
|-
|Neptune
|5200
|4498
|5.5
|.000007
|0
|0.063
|0.0008
|
|}

:Considering only the ''anomalous'' precession, that is, the precession that remains after all known other factors (other planets and asteroids, solar oblateness) have been accounted for, and using very accurate calculations rather than the approximations given above, general relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04 arcseconds per century. Some observed values, as of 2008, are:
::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijpers 2008]]
:These error bars, and that of the general relativity prediction, all overlap.

*Another is the ''Shapiro effect'', involving time delay in radio signals passing through the gravity well of the Sun or a planet. Various spacecraft have confirmed this.

*Another is ''gravitational time dilation''. This is an effect separate from the time dilation of special relativity. It was tested by the Pound-Rebka experiment in 1959.

*Later in the 20th century, even more subtle phenomena were tested. One was the phenomenon of ''gravitational radiation'', or "gravitational waves". These waves are incredibly difficult to observe, and had never been observed until 2015. But extremely dense binary pulsars radiate gravitational waves with sufficient energy loss that, even though we can't detect the waves from Earth, we can see the effect of the energy loss from the radiation. The extreme precision of the timing of pulses from pulsars makes it possible to observe their energy loss with great accuracy. Observations by Hulse and Taylor of the pulsar pair known as B1913+16, if assumptions are made,<ref>Similar to the way Kepler chose orbital parameters to fit observed planetary motion to his theory</ref> could make the energy loss appear consistent with the predicted radiation. The rotating pulsars have moved such that Earth is now out of the beams, so those observations have been discontinued.

*In late 2015 (and announced in 2016), the LIGO instruments directly detected gravitational waves. See [[Gravitational waves]].

*An additional test of general relativity was performed with radio signals to the Cassini spacecraft.<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6956/full/nature01997.html</ref>

*Two other effects, ''geodetic precession'' (also known as "de Sitter precession"), and ''frame dragging'' (also known as the "Lense-Thirring effect") were tested by the "Gravity Probe B" satellite early in the 21st century.<ref>http://prl.aps.org/accepted/L/ea070Y8dQ491d22a28828c95f660a57ac82e7d8c0</ref><ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/306430</ref><ref>http://www.nap.edu/html/gpb/summary.html</ref><ref>http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/73870/title/Gravity_Probe_B_finally_pays_off_</ref><ref>http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/</ref><ref>http://einstein.stanford.edu/</ref><ref>http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/the-gravity-probe-b-bailout</ref><ref>http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/06/nasa-concludes-gravity-probe-b-space-time-experiment-proves-e/</ref> The precision required to observe this was phenomenal. The results were announced on May 4, 2011.

{{clear}}

==Predicted consequences of the Theories==
===Time dilation===

[[Image:Light cone.png|right|thumb|Light-cone diagram]]
One important consequence of SR's postulates is that an observer in one reference frame will observe a clock in another frame to be "ticking" more slowly than in the observer's own frame. This can be proven mathematically using basic geometry, if the postulates are physically true without exception.

The length of an event <math>t</math>, as seen by a (relative) stationary observer observing an event is given by:

<math> t = \frac{t_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math>

Where
:<math>t_0</math> is the "proper time" or the length of the event in the observed frame of reference.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

Evidence for time dilation was discovered by studying [[muon decay]]. [[Muons]] are [[subatomic]] [[particles]] with a very short [[halflife]] (1.53 microseconds at rest) and a very fast speed (0.994c). By putting muon detectors at the top (D1) and bottom (D2) of a mountain with a separation of 1900m, scientists could measure accurately the proportion of muons reaching the second detector in comparison to the first. The proportion found was different to the proportion that was calculated without taking into account relativistic effects.

Using the equation for [[exponential decay]], they could use this proportion to calculate the time taken for the muons to decay, relative to the muon. Then, using the time dilation equation they could then work out the dilated time. The dilated time showed a good correlation with the time it took the muons to reach the second sensor, thereby supporting the existence of time dilation.

The time taken for a muon to travel from D1 to D2 as measured by a stationary observer is:

<math> t = \frac{s}{v} = \frac{1900}{0.994\times(3\times10^{8})} = 6.37\mu\textrm{s} </math>

The fraction of muons arriving at D2 in comparison to D1 was 0.732. (Given by <math> \frac{N}{N_0} = 0.732 </math>)

Since (from the equation for exponential decay) <math> \frac{N}{N_{0}} = e^{-\lambda t_{0}} </math> then

<math> t_{0} = \frac {ln(0.732)}{ln (0.2)} \times 1.53\times 10^{-6} = 0.689\mu\textrm{s}</math>

This gives the time for the proportion of decay to occur for an observer who is stationary, relative to the muon.

Putting this into the time dilation equation gives:

<math> t = \frac{t_{0}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}} = \frac{0.689 \times{10^{-6}}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{0.994^{2}}{1^{2}}}} = 6.3\times 10^{-6}\textrm{s}</math>

This is in good agreement with the value calculated above, thereby providing evidence to support time dilation.

====Time Dilation and Creation Science====

{{main|Starlight problem#Humphreys.27_model}}

Creation scientists such as physicists Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] and Dr. [[John Hartnett]] have used relativistic time dilation to explain how the earth can be only 6,000 years old even though cosmological data (background radiation, supernovae, etc.) set a much older age for the universe.

===Length contraction===
When two inertial reference frames move past each other in a straight line with constant relative velocity, an observer in one reference frame would observe a metre rule in the other frame to be shorter along the direction parallel to the relative motion.

The length, <math>l</math>, of an object as seen by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:

<math> l = l_{0} \sqrt{1- \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}</math>

Where
:<math>l_0</math> is the "proper length" or the length of the object in the observed frame of reference.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

===Mass increase===

For decades the theory of relativity taught that as a body moves with increasing velocity its [[mass]] also increases.<ref>For example, this was taught as recently as in the 1991 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica.</ref>

Under this view, the mass, <math>m</math>, of an object as detected by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:

:<math> m = \frac{m_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math>

Where
:<math>m_0</math> is the "rest mass" or the mass of the object measured by an observer in the same reference frame as the object.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity of the object.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

Since speed is relative, it follows that two observers in different inertial reference frames may disagree on the mass and kinetic energy of a body. Since all inertial reference frames are treated on an equal footing, it follows that mass and energy are interchangeable.

In recent years most physicists have shifted away from Einstein's original reliance on relativistic mass and his suggestion that mass increases{{Citation needed|date=January 2012}}. Instead, most physicists today teach that

:<math>F=\frac{d}{d\tau} p</math>

where <math>p</math> is the momentum defined by <math>\gamma m v</math>, <math>\gamma</math> is the standard Lorentz factor, and <math>\tau</math> is the proper time. Force F defined this way is a vector and thus can handle the directional aspect of the relativistic effects better than the concept of relativistic mass can.

The abandonment by physicists of the concept of relativistic mass, however, has the consequence of undermining the traditional claim under relativity that

:<math>m - m_0 = \frac{E}{c^2}</math>

also popularly known as

:<math>E = m c^2</math>

Now a concept of the 4-momentum <math>p</math> of a particle is taught, such that the square of the magnitude of <math>p</math> satisfies:

<math>||p||^2 = -p_x^2-p_y^2-p_z^2+E^2 = m_0^2c^4</math>

in any inertial reference frame. The magnitude of the 4-momentum, in any inertial frame, equals the rest mass <math>m_0</math> of the particle (in units where <math>c=1</math>).

== Relativity in everyday life ==

Due to the small speeds and gravitational fields in normal life, relativistic phenomena such as time dilation and length contraction are rarely observed. However some things in everyday life can be explained using relativity:

*GPS, the satellites experience time dilation due to the difference in speed and the strength of gravitational field between the satellite and the ground. This is corrected by daily synchronisation between the ground and the atomic clocks in the satellites.
*While most elemental metals such as [[silver]], [[zinc]] and [[mercury]] have a silver/grey appearance, some metals like [[gold]] and [[copper]] do not. This difference can be explained using relativistic quantum mechanics.

== Paradoxes ==

The predictions of the theory of relativity throw up a number of apparent paradoxes and anomalies relating to the effects of time dilatation and length contraction. Whilst these paradoxes are consistent with the theory, they are contrary to everyday human experience and therefore can seem like impossibilities.

=== The Twin Paradox ===

The twin paradox is usually stated as a thought experiment involving two twins, one of whom is sent on a long journey in a spacecraft travelling at close to the speed of light, whilst the other remains on Earth. Time dilatation means that the travelling twin, on his return to Earth, is younger that the twin who has remained at home. However, because neither twin is in a special position - each being in an inertial frame of reference - the reverse must also be true, and so the twin remaining on Earth must be younger. Hence each twin is younger than the other - a paradox.

The problem can be resolved in two ways. One is to examine the effects of General Relativity: to come back to Earth, the travelling twin must undergo acceleration in order to reverse his course, causing temporal effects which make him permanently the younger. Alternatively, it can be explained entirely using Special Relativity and noting that the twins are not in symmetrical situations: the one on earth has remained in a single inertial frame of reference, whilst the travelling twin has travelled in two.<ref>http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm</ref>

=== The Ehrenfest Paradox ===

The Ehrenfest Paradox considers a rigid wheel or disc rotating a bout its axis at high speed (somewhat like a bicycle wheel spinning freely on its axle). The rim of the wheel travels at close to the speed of light and therefore undergoes length contraction, whereas the radius (the spokes, for the bicycle wheel) does not. Hence the circumference is no longer equal to 2<big><math>\pi</math></big>r, which is paradoxical.

The apparent paradox was finally resolved in 1975 by the Norwegian scientist [[Øyvind Grøn]].<ref>http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=224955</ref>

== Variable Speed of Light ==

The Theory of Relativity implies that physical constants like c, the speed of light in a vacuum, have remained constant. But at least one study suggests that physical constants, and possibly even the speed of light, have changed as the universe has aged.<ref>James Glanz and Dennis Overbye, "Cosmic Laws Like Speed of Light Might Be Changing, a Study Finds," August 15, 2001.[http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/15/science/15PHYS.html?ex=1185076800&en=d6467b6e3e346796&ei=5070]</ref>

"For the first time, scientists have experimentally demonstrated that sound pulses can travel at velocities faster than the speed of light, c. William Robertson's team from Middle Tennessee State University also showed that the group velocity of sound waves can become infinite, and even negative. ... Although such results may at first appear to violate special relativity (Einstein's law that no material object can exceed the speed of light), the actual significance of these experiments is a little different. These types of superluminal phenomena, Robertson et al. explain, violate neither causality nor special relativity, nor do they enable information to travel faster than c. In fact, theoretical work had predicted that the superluminal speed of the group velocity of sound waves should exist. 'The key to understanding this seeming paradox is that no wave energy exceeded the speed of light,' said Robertson."<ref>http://www.physorg.com/news88249076.html</ref>

"A team of researchers from the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) has successfully demonstrated, for the first time, that it is possible to control the speed of light – both slowing it down and speeding it up – in an optical fiber, using off-the-shelf instrumentation in normal environmental conditions. Their results, to be published in the August 22 issue of Applied Physics Letters, could have implications that range from optical [[computing]] to the fiber-optic telecommunications industry."<ref>http://www.scienceblog.com/light.html</ref> Both slowing down and speeding up of light within a substance other than a vacuum is made possible, because the light travels through the material, and that material affects the speed of light, i.e. a photon hits an electron, which then exits and emits a slightly lower energy photon out in the direction that the original photon was traveling, thus maintaining conservation of momentum. No matter how transparent an object may appear, it radically impacts the speed of the light traveling through it, as demonstrated by the refractive production of a rainbow by a crystal, which Newton himself discovered.

This apparent change in speed can be explained, however, by noting that the constant c refers to the speed of light in a vacuum, i.e., when it is unimpeded. The speed of light when traveling through physical media is, in fact, variable.

"A pair of German physicists claim to have broken the speed of light - an achievement that would undermine our entire understanding of space and time. ... Dr Nimtz told New Scientist magazine: 'For the time being, this is the only violation of special relativity that I know of.'"<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/16/scispeed116.xml</ref>

==Pending research==

Today some physicists are working on hypothesizing how general relativity might have related to the other three forces of nature during the first fraction of a second of the [[Big Bang]]. Two of the more commonly studied attempts are [[string theory]] and [[loop quantum gravity]], but they have failed to produce any evidence that science mandates a science must have, and both typically take large amounts of work to even conform to what scientists believe. Critics increasingly point out that string theory and loop quantum gravity are largely untestable and unfalsifiable, and thus potentially unscientific under the principles of science advanced by [[Karl Popper]].<ref>See, for example, ''Not Even Wrong'', by Peter Woit</ref>

Relativity continues to be tested and some physics professors remain skeptical of the theory, such as University of Maryland physics professor Carroll Alley, who served as the principle physicist on the Apollo lunar project.<ref>http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/21jul_llr.htm</ref>

== Political aspects of relativity ==

Some [[liberal]] politicians have extrapolated the theory of relativity to metaphorically justify their own political agendas. For example, [[Democratic]] [[President of the United States of America|President]] [[Barack Obama]] helped publish an article by liberal law professor [[Laurence Tribe]] to apply the relativistic concept of "curvature of space" to promote a broad legal right to [[abortion]].<ref>Tribe, acknowledging help by Obama, argued that the [[Constitution]] should be interpreted to establish a right to federally funded [[abortion]] and that, more generally, ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' does not go far enough. They insisted that a relativistic "curvature of space" could achieve this result by expanding application of the [[Constitution]] based on its impact on personal choice. "The ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' opinion ignored the way in which laws regulating pregnant women may shape the entire pattern of relationships among men, women, and children. It conceptualized abortion not in terms of the intensely public question of the subordination of women to men through the exploitation of pregnancy, but in terms of the purportedly private question of how women might make intimately personal decisions about their bodies and their lives. That vision described a part of the truth, but only what might be called the Newtonian part. ... [A] change in the surrounding legal setting can constitute state action that most threatens the sphere of personal choice. And it is a 'curved space' perspective on how law operates that leads one to focus less on the visible lines of legal force and more on how those lines are bent and directed by the law's geometry." Laurence H. Tribe, The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn from Modern Physics, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 16-17 (1989).</ref> As of June 2008, over 170 law review articles have cited this [[liberal]] application of the theory of relativity to legal arguments.<ref>Search conducted by [[User:Aschlafly]] in the LEXIS database "US Law Reviews and Journals, Combined," conducted June 1, 2008.</ref> Applications of the theory of relativity to change morality have also been common.<ref>"Mistakenly, in the minds of many, the theory of relativity became relativism."[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38081]</ref> Moreover, there is an unmistakable effort to censor or ostracize criticism of relativity.<ref>Although the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|liberally biased Wikipedia]] contains lengthy criticisms of the subjects of many entries, and even though publications like ''The Economist'' recognize the lack of scientific satisfaction in the theory (see, e.g., "Weighing the Universe," The Economist (Jan. 25, 2007)), Wikipedia's entry on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Relativity Theory of Relativity] omits one word of criticism.</ref>

Physicist [[Robert Dicke]] of Princeton University was a prominent critic<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html</ref> of general relativity, and Dicke's alternative "has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."<ref>"Initially a popular alternative to General Relativity, the Brans-Dicke theory lost favor as it became clear that omega must be very large-an artificial requirement in some views. Nevertheless, the theory has remained a paradigm for the introduction of scalar fields into gravitational theory, and as such has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."[http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/Essay_bekenstein.html]</ref> Despite being one of the most accomplished physicists in the 20th century, Dicke was repeatedly passed over for a [[Nobel Prize]], and in at least one case Dicke was insulted by the award being granted to others for contributions more properly credited to Dicke.

There has been little recognition by the Nobel Prize committee of either theory of relativity, and particularly scant recognition of the Theory of General Relativity. A dubious 1993 Nobel prize in physics was awarded Hulse and Taylor for supposedly finding the first evidence of gravitational waves in the orbital decay of the binary pulsar PSR1913+16.<ref>Weisberg, Joel M.; Taylor, Joseph H. (2003), "The Relativistic Binary Pulsar B1913+16"", in Bailes, M.; Nice, D. J.; Thorsett, S. E., Proceedings of "Radio Pulsars," Chania, Crete, August, 2002, ASP Conference Series</ref> A close reading of the paper reveals that that is based heavily on assumptions in trying to retrofit the data to the theory.

===Government Support for Relativistic research===
The Federal Government has funded the building of two gravity wave detectors: The first to test the principle, and the second (upgrade) to actually perform measurements. As a result of this work, on February 11, 2016, the LIGO team reported successful detection of gravitational waves caused by the merging of two black holes.<ref>https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160211</ref>

{{Relativity}}

==See also==
*[[Attempts to prove E=mc²]]
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]
*[[Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]
*[[Quantitative Analysis of Alpha Decay]]
*[[Gravitational waves]]

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Science]]

==External links ==
*[http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity, by H.A. Lorentz.]
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com Relativity Science Calculator - Learn Special Relativity Mathematics ] The mathematics of special relativity presented in as simple and comprehensive manner possible within philosophical and historical contexts.
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com/history_of_time_clocks.shtml Relativity Science Calculator - Philosophic Question: are clocks and time separable?]
*[http://www.relativityscience.com/twin_clock_paradox.shtml Relativity Science Calculator - Twin Clock Paradox]

Light year

2016-09-04T11:45:53Z

PeterHockey: Repaired broken link

A '''light year''' is the distance light travels in one year in a vacuum.
It is a measure of distance used in popular science for distances to great too express in kilometers or miles.

Professional [[astronomer]]s prefer to use the [[parsec]] (approximately 3.26 light years) instead of the light year.

The light year is easily derived from the speed of light which is about 300,000,000 meters per second = '''<math>3\times10^8</math>'''m/s.

A light year can then be calculated to be about <math>3.00 \times 10^8 m/s \times 3600s \times 24 \times 365</math> = '''<math>9.46\times10^{12}km</math>''' , or '''<math>5.9\times10^{12}</math>''' miles (5900 billion miles). 
(To put this in perspective: a person would have to live 31 years, 251 days, 7 hours, 46 minutes, and 39 seconds to reach the age of '''1 billion''' seconds-old.)<ref>http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/58739.html</ref>

The distance in light years is equal to the time a light wave needs to cover that distance.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Physical Science''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1999, 2000</ref> Many objects in the universe are more than 10,000 light years away, giving rise to the [[starlight problem]] in [[Creation science]]. A similar problem occurs (the Horizon Problem) in the [[Big bang theory|bing bang model]] of the Universe. In the [[Big bang theory]], this problem is resolved by the fact the universe is expanding.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Units of Measurement]]

Light year

2016-09-04T11:44:37Z

PeterHockey: Added a bit

A '''light year''' is the distance light travels in one year in a vacuum.
It is a measure of distance used in popular science for distances to great too express in kilometers or miles.

Professional [[astronomer]]s prefer to use the [[parsec]] (approximately 3.26 light years) instead of the light year.

The light year is easily derived from the speed of light which is about 300,000,000 meters per second = '''<math>3\times10^8</math>'''m/s.

A light year can then be calculated to be about <math>3.00 \times 10^8 m/s \times 3600s \times 24 \times 365</math> = '''<math>9.46\times10^{12}km</math>''' , or '''<math>5.9\times10^{12}</math>''' miles (5900 billion miles). 
(To put this in perspective: a person would have to live 31 years, 251 days, 7 hours, 46 minutes, and 39 seconds to reach the age of '''1 billion''' seconds-old.)<ref>http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/58739.html</ref>

The distance in light years is equal to the time a light wave needs to cover that distance.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Physical Science''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1999, 2000</ref> Many objects in the universe are more than 10,000 light years away, giving rise to the [[starlight problem]] in [[Creation science]]. A similar problem occurs (the Horizon Problem) in the [[Big Bang Model|Big bang theory]] of the Universe. In the [[Big bang theory]], this problem is resolved by the fact the universe is expanding.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Units of Measurement]]

Weak force

2016-09-02T16:51:19Z

PeterHockey: Created the page

The '''Weak force''' is one of the four fundamental forces of nature. It is responsible for radioactive decay. It is transmitted by three [[boson|bosons]], the uncharged z boson and two w bosons, one having positive charge and the other negative.

==Electroweak unification==
The weak and electromagnetic forces have been unified.

==See Also==
[[Gravitation]]
[[Electromagnetism]]

Neutron

2016-09-02T16:40:09Z

PeterHockey: Added a biy

[[Image:310px-Beta Negative Decay svg.png|right|thumb|300px|The [[Feynmann diagram]] of a neutron decaying ([[beta decay|beta minus decay]])]]
A '''neutron''' is the neutral particle in an [[atom]]'s [[nucleus]]. It is a [[baryon]], comprised of two down [[quark]]s and an up [[quark]]. It keeps the positive protons in the nucleus from being pushed apart from each other by their like charges. A lack or excess of neutrons causes an atom to become unstable; [[beta decay|beta radiation]] is the conversion of a neutron into a [[proton]] which emits an [[electron]] and an [[anti-electron neutrino]]. Although neutrons comprise a large part of all matter, they are inherently unstable if not bound to a nucleus, and undergoes beta minus decay in a brief period of time, with a half life of about 15 minutes.<ref>https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2014/02/toward-new-precision-measuring-neutron-lifetime</ref>

==See also==

*[[Atom]]
*[[Proton]]
*[[Electron]]
*[[Periodic table of the elements]]
*[[Quark]]
*[[nucleon]]

==Links==

*[http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/2007/09/18/study_contradicts_neutron_theory/8801/ Study contradicts neutron theory]

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Chemistry]]

Theory of relativity

2016-09-02T15:12:49Z

PeterHockey: Rephrasing, added a bit

''See also [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].''

In physics, the '''theory of relativity''' is a scientific theory describing the effects due to the invariance of the speed of light. In particular, the meaning of space and time are altered by the motion of the observer. Relativity predicts phenomena such as time dilation and length contraction for observers moving relative to one another at very high ("relativistic") speed.

'''Relativity''' refers to two closely-related mathematical theories in [[physics]]:
[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|
*"I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional [[Atheism|atheist]] whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." - [[Albert Einstein]]<ref name="Isaacson390">Isaacson, Walter (2008). [http://books.google.com/books?id=cdxWNE7NY6QC&pg=PT390 ''Einstein: His Life and Universe''] (New York: Simon and Schuster), p. 390. Retrieved from GoogleBooks archive on February 19, 2015.</ref>]]
*'''[[Special theory of relativity|Special relativity]]''' (SR) is a theory which describes the laws of motion for non-accelerating bodies traveling at a significant fraction of the [[speed of light]]. As speeds approach zero, Special Relativity tends towards equivalence with [[Newton's Laws of Motion]]. Special Relativity was developed by [[Hendrik Lorentz]], [[Henri Poincaré]], and Hermann Minkowski,<ref>"German mathematician who developed the geometrical theory of numbers and who made numerous contributions to number theory, mathematical physics, and the theory of relativity." [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9052860/Hermann-Minkowski Hermann Minkowski -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia]</ref><ref>[http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Minkowski.html Hermann Minkowski, Biography]</ref> and [[Albert Einstein]].

*'''[[General theory of relativity|General Relativity]]''' (GR) is a theory which explains the laws of motion as viewed from accelerating reference frames and includes a geometric explanation for gravity. This theory was developed by [[David Hilbert]] and [[Albert Einstein]] as a generalization of the postulates of Special Relativity.<ref>"[T]he German mathematician David Hilbert submitted an article containing the correct field equations for general relativity five days before Einstein."[http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/physics/relativity/history-1.html Nobel Prize historical account]</ref> A dramatic but later discredited claim by Sir [[Arthur Eddington]] of experimental proof of General Relativity in 1919 made Einstein a household name.

These theories have augmented earlier approaches, such as [[Galilean Relativity]].

The theory of relativity is defended with religious-like zeal, such that no college faculty tenure, Ph.D degree, or Nobel Prize is ever awarded to anyone who dares criticize the theory, as the example of denying a Nobel Prize to the most accomplished physicist of the 20th century, [[Robert Dicke]], illustrates. Another critic of the theory was Louis Essen [1908-1997], the man credited with determining the speed of light. He wrote many fiery papers against it such as ''Relativity and Time Signals''<ref>http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Journal%20Reprints-Relativity%20Theory/Download/3297</ref> and ''Relativity - Joke or Swindle?''.<ref>http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/Essen-L.htm</ref> Perhaps the most famous website opposing relativity is this one, with its [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] page. The cornerstone item in that page involves the experimental measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury that show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.

The theory of relativity have discontinuities whereby the limit of a physical quantity as a variable (such as mass or velocity) approaches a fixed value is not the same as the physical quantity at the fixed value. For example, the limit of momentum as mass approaches 0 and velocity approaches the speed of light is not equal to the momentum of (massless) light.<ref>Discontinuities in General Relativity are also well-recognized. See, e.g., [http://www.springerlink.com/content/u47l341u2q555455/]</ref>

The theory of relativity consist of complex mathematical equations relying on several hypotheses. For example, at Hofstra University general relativity is taught as part of an upperclass math course on differential geometry, based on three stated assumptions.<ref>http://people.hofstra.edu/Stefan_Waner/diff_geom/tc.html</ref> Special relativity assumes that all observers in inertial frames of reference will measure the same value for the speed of light, '''c''' and that all inertial frames of reference are equivalent. These hypotheses that can never be fully tested. Relativity rejects Newton's [[action at a distance]], which is basic to Newtonian gravity and also found to be a consequence of [[quantum mechanics]]. The mathematics of relativity assume no exceptions, yet in the time period immediately following the origin of the universe the relativity equations could not possibly have been valid, since quantum effects would not be negligible (in the same way non-relativistic quantum mechanics is not valid when dealing with particles traveling near the speed of light).

The "continuous" nature of space and time postulated by relativity is in conflict with the "discrete" nature in [[quantum mechanics]],<ref>For example, Relativity claims that space and time are smooth and continuous, while [[quantum mechanics]] suggests otherwise. [http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astronomy/2010/1025/Is-the-universe-a-big-hologram-This-device-could-find-out.] Relativity also denies [[action-at-a-distance]], while quantum mechanics suggests otherwise. Relativity denies any role for chance, while quantum mechanics is heavily dependent on it.</ref> and although theories like [[string theory]] and [[quantum field theory]] have attempted to unify relativity and quantum mechanics, neither has been entirely successful or proven.

Unlike [[Classical mechanics|Newtonian physics]], in which space and time intervals are each invariant as seen by all observers, in SR the only invariant quantity is a quadratic combination of space and time intervals (x2 - c2 t2). The instantaneous transmission of Newtonian gravitational effects also contradicts relativity.

In quantum mechanics, the [[uncertainty principle]] suggests that virtual particles can sometimes travel faster than the speed of light which would violate causality, but "[t]he only known way to resolve this tension involves introducing the idea of antiparticles."<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2004/wilczek-lecture.pdf (p. 102)</ref> Consequently, in 1928 Paul Dirac derived the Dirac equation, one of the first quantum mechanical equations compatible with special relativity, by which Dirac predicted the existence of antimatter. Four years later, antimatter (the positron) was discovered by Carl Anderson, as successfully predicted by relativistic quantum mechanics. [[Quantum field theory]], a generalization of quantum mechanics, is fully compatible with special relativity but not with general relativity, and still lacks a vital piece: evidence of the [[graviton]].

A famous critic of Theory of relativity is [[Nikola Tesla]], who called it a "...magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king ... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists, not scientists...".<ref>[http://www.plasmacosmology.net/tesla.html New York Times, July 11, 1935, p23, c8]</ref>

== Special Relativity ==
Lorentz and Poincaré developed Special Relativity as way of understanding how Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism could be valid in different frames of reference. Einstein famously published an explanation of Poincaré's theory in terms of two assumptions (postulates):

# ''The [[speed of light]] is constant for all (inertial) observers, regardless of their velocities relative to each other.''
# ''The laws of physics are identical in all inertial reference frames.''

In layman's terms, these two assumptions can be restated as:
# It is impossible ever to transmit information faster than the speed of light.<ref>This assumption is commonly restated in this manner. For example, a discussion of hypothetical [[tachyons]] talks "about using tachyons to transmit information faster than the speed of light, '''in violation of Special Relativity'''."[http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html] However, there is some question whether the Theory of Special Relativity really restricts faster-than-light communication of information.</ref>
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, in every location throughout the universe.
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, no matter how fast something is traveling (in the absence of acceleration).

Or, in more concise, clearer terms, these assumptions are this:

#there is no [[action at a distance]] (because that would make observations dependent on the frame of reference)
#space and time are completely symmetric throughout the universe (because otherwise frames of reference would not be interchangeable)

When the assumptions are stated clearly as above, the weaknesses in the theory are more apparent. There “is” action at a distance in [[quantum entanglement]] and apparently also in gravity, as no gravitons can be found. However, no information has yet been transmitted via quantum entanglement, so while non-locality violates the spirit of relativity it is consistent with it if relativity is limited to the transmission of information. [[Quantum field theory]], an attempt to partially reconcile [[quantum mechanics]] with relativity, is incomplete at best. As to the second assumption, it is contrary to the [[arrow of time]], which illustrates the lack of symmetry in time. Logical defects include the incoherence of relativistic mass (see discussion below) and the lack of relativistic constraints near the beginning the universe (see above).

Special Relativity (SR) was initially developed by [[Henri Poincaré]] and [[Hendrik Lorentz]], working on problems in electrodynamics and the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]], which had not found any sign of Earth's orbital motion through the [[aether (science)|luminiferous aether]], which was believed to be the substance which carried electromagnetic waves. Special relativity alters [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion by assuming that the speed of light will be the same for all observers, despite their relative velocities and the source of the light. (Therefore, if A sends a beam of light to B, and both measure the speed, it will be the same for both, no matter what the relative velocity of A and B. In Newtonian/Galilean mechanics, If A sends a physical object at a particular velocity towards B, and nothing slows it, the velocity of the object relative to B depends on the velocities of the object and of B relative to A.)

At low speeds (relative to light-speed), the Lorentz-Poincaré relativity equations are equivalent to Newton's equations. The media-promoted equation ''[[E=mc²]]'', implausibly suggests a relationship between typically unrelated concepts of energy, the rest mass of a body and the speed of light.

Under relativity, particles at low mass and low speed can be accurately approximated by [[classical mechanics]] (such as [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion). At the two extremes, modeling the behavior of electrons requires that relativistic effects be taken into account (the chemically significant phenomenon of electron spin arises from relativity), and the course of light passing through a region containing many massive bodies such as galaxies will be distorted ([[classical mechanics]], in which light travels in straight lines, does not predict this). These are both experimentally confirmed (electron spin was known before relativity arose, and telescopic observations confirm that galactic clusters distort the paths of the light passing through them).

Many scientists have indicated problems with the postulates of special relativity. Paul Davies, formerly of Macquarie University and now at the University of Arizona believes that the speed of light has changed over time. Since the speed of light is a constant speed 'c' this indicates problems with the theory [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2181455.stm light speed]. Other engineers and scientists have written about problems in the basic set of special relativity equations. Based on the ideas of not Einstein but of the scientist Fitzgerald as well as others, a length contraction effect was predicted as an explanation of the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment to detect Earth's orbital motion. This idea was taken up by Hendrik Lorentz and shown by others to be a useful mechanism by which theory could be forced into conformance with experimental results. However, in 2005, Michael Strauss a computer engineer invalidated much of Special Relativity theory by showing clear contradictions in the theory. [http://www.relativitycollapse.com relativity]

== General Relativity ==

::::''See the [[General theory of relativity]] page for more in-depth coverage of this topic.''

General Relativity is a theory of gravity that is compatible with Special Relativity. Einstein explains a thought experiment involving two elevators. The first elevator is stationary on the Earth, while the other is being pulled through space at a constant acceleration of g. Einstein realized that any physical experiment carried out in the elevators would give the same result. This realization is known as the equivalence principle and it states that accelerating frames of reference and gravitational fields are indistinguishable. General Relativity is the theory of gravity that incorporates Special Relativity and the equivalence principle.

General Relativity is a mathematical extension of Special Relativity. GR views space-time as a 4-dimensional [[manifold]], which looks locally like [[Minkowski space]], and which acquires [[curvature]] due to the presence of massive bodies. Thus, near massive bodies, the geometry of space-time differs to a large degree from [[Euclidean geometry]]: for example, the sum of the angles in a triangle is not exactly 180 degrees. Just as in classical physics, objects travel along [[geodesic]]s in the absence of external forces. Importantly though, near a massive body, geodesics are no longer straight lines. It is this phenomenon of objects traveling along geodesics in a curved spacetime that accounts for gravity.

The anomalous precession of Mercury's [[perihelion]] seems to support the Theory of General Relativity, though that is disputed on the[[Counterexamples to Relativity]] page. Keep in mind that the precession in question is the ''"anomalous"''
precession after the effects of other planets' gravitation action has been compensated for. Those other effects are much larger, and are purely Newtonian in nature. There was another explanation based on Newtonian gravity, involving a slight alteration to the precise inverse-square relation of Newtonian gravity to distance, but it was discarded when it gave very bad results for the Moon's orbit.

British Historian Paul Johnson declares the turning point in 20th century to have been when fellow Briton Sir [[Arthur Eddington]], an esteemed English astronomer, ventured out on a boat off Africa in 1919 with a local Army unit to observe the bending of starlight around the sun during a total eclipse. Upon his return to England declared that his observations proven the theory of relativity. In fact recent analysis of Eddington's work revealed that he was biased in selecting his data, and that overall his data were inconclusive about the theory of relativity. The prediction was later confirmed by more rigorous experiments, such as those performed by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]].<ref>[http://www.spaceimages.com/gravlen.html Hubble Gravitational Lens Photo]</ref><ref>[[Gravitational lensing]]</ref><ref>[http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/glgallery.html]</ref> Lorentz has this to say on the discrepancies between the empirical eclipse data and Einstein's predictions.

::''It indeed seems that the discrepancies may be ascribed to faults in observations, which supposition is supported by the fact that the observations at Prince's Island, which, it is true, did not turn out quite as well as those mentioned above, gave the result, of 1.64, somewhat lower than Einstein's figure.''<ref>Lorentz, H.A. [http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity]</ref>

The prediction that light is bent by gravity is predicted both by Newtonian physics and relativity, but relativity predicts a larger deflection.

Special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity where all gravitational fields are weak. Alternatively, special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity when all reference frames are inertial (non-accelerating and without gravity).

==Lack of evidence for Relativity==
The Theory of relativity assumes that time is symmetric just as space is, but the biggest early promoter of relativity, Arthur Eddington, coined the term "[[arrow of time]]" admitting how time is ''not'' symmetric but is directional. The passage of time is tied to an increase in disorder, or [[entropy]]. The Theory of relativity cannot explain this, and implicitly denies it, specifically allowing for theoretical time travel (e.g., [[wormholes]]) and different rates of passage of time based on velocity and acceleration.

Claims that relativity was used to develop the [[Global Positioning System]] ([[GPS]]) are false. A 1996 article explains:

:"The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein's general theory of relativity would seem to require - transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter - less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth."<ref>http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf</ref><ref>Some do claim that relativity is "vital" to GPS even though GPS developed independently of theoretical predictions and theoreticians disagree about how the relativistic effects for GPS should be calculated. ''See id. See also'' [http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR614/MR614.appb.pdf]</ref>

This article, which was published in 1996, goes on to propose relativistic corrections that might be used to design more accurate GPS systems. Clocks on board GPS satellites require adjustments to their clock frequencies if they are to be synchronized with those on the surface of the Earth.

Tom Van Flandern, an astronomer hired to work on GPS in the late 1990s, concluded that "[t]he GPS programmers don't need relativity." He was quoted as saying that the GPS programmers "have basically blown off Einstein."<ref>http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/einstein/index.html See also [http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP], where Van Flandern discusses how relativistic corrections might improve GPS accuracy.</ref> Asynchronization can be easily addressed through communications between the satellites and ground stations, so it is unclear why any theory would be needed for GPS. While Van Flandern believed that relativity is unnecessary for GPS, he also asserted that observations of GPS satellites supported both general and special relativity, writing that "we can assert with confidence that the predictions of relativity are confirmed to high accuracy over time periods of many days," with unrelated factors interfering with longer-term observations.<ref>http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp</ref>

Some internet articles claim that GPS timing differences ''confirm'' the Theory of Relativity or its Lorentzian counterpart (which uses a preferred frame of reference). GPS clocks run slower in the weaker gravitation field of the satellites than on ground stations on Earth, with the effects predicted by general relativity far outweighing the effects predicted by special relativity. However, the articles claiming that the slower GPS satellite clocks confirm relativity do not address the effect, if any, of the weaker gravitational force under Newton's theory on the GPS satellite clocks, likely because in Newtonian Mechanics every clock in the universe keeps time at the same rate regardless of velocity, acceleration, or the presence or absence of force.

Currently, GPS satellites are synchronized to Coordinated Universal Time by radio signals from the ground; therefore, they cannot currently be used to test general relativity.<ref>[http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html "General Relativity in the Global Positioning System."] Neil Ashby, U. of Colorado</ref>

There are claims that the effects of relativity have been observed with the frequency shift of the signal being sent back to [[Earth]] several times as various spacecraft have dipped into the gravity wells around massive objects such as the [[sun]] (see image at right)<ref>[http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press-releases-03/20031002-pr-a.cfm Saturn-Bound Spacecraft Tests Einstein's Theory]</ref> or Saturn.<ref>[http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12517102.600-science-encounter-with-saturn-confirms-relativity-theory.html Encounter with Saturn confirms relativity theory]</ref> A satellite called [[Gravity Probe B]] was put in orbit about the Earth to examine the effects of frame dragging and geodetic warping of space,<ref>[http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/index.html NASA Gravity Probe B mission page]</ref><ref>[http://einstein.stanford.edu/ Gravity Probe B project page]</ref> but the results were inconclusive. Note, however, that Newtonian mechanics also predicts deflection of light by gravity, and in the initial theory of relativity it predicted the same amount of deflection, but only if we treat light as capable of being accelerated and decelerated like ordinary matter, which is contrary to all measurements and observations to date.<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm</ref> Adjustments to the theory of relativity resulted in a prediction of a greater deflection of light than that predicated by Newtonian mechanics, though it is debatable how much deflection Newtonian mechanics should predict.

None of the NASA spacecraft incorporates predictions of relativity into their own timing mechanisms, as Newtonian mechanics is adequate even for probes sent deep into space so long as they do not undergo accelerations near the speed of light or enter any massive gravity wells.<ref>There is no reported reliance on relativity by any space probe.</ref>

A decade of observation of the [[pulsar]] pair [[PSR 1913 16|PSR B1913+16]] detected a decline in its orbital period, which was attributed to a loss in energy by the system. It is impossible to measure the masses of the pulsars, their accelerations relative to the observers, or other fundamental parameters. Professors Joseph Taylor and Russell Hulse, who discovered the binary pulsar, found that physical values could be assigned to the pulsars to make the observed decline in orbital period consistent with the Theory of General Relativity, and for this they were awarded the 1993 [[Nobel Prize]] for Physics, which is the only award ever given by the Nobel committee for the Theory of Relativity.<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1993/press.html</ref> In 2004, Professor Taylor utilized a correction to the derivative of the orbital period to fit subsequent data better to the theory. At most, assumptions can be made and altered to fit the data to the theory, rather than the data confirming the theory.

The [[perihelion]] of Mercury's [[orbit]] [[precession|precesses]] at a measurable rate, but even after accounting for gravitational perturbations caused all other planets in the [[solar system]], Newton's theory (assuming a precise inverse-square relationship for distance) predicts a rate of precession that differs from the measured rate by approximately 43 [[arcsecond]]s per century. General relativity was developed in part to provide an estimate for this rate of precession that better matches observations.<ref>http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html#SECTION032121000000000000000</ref><ref>http://www.alberteinstein.info/gallery/pdf/CP6Doc30_English_pp146-200.pdf</ref><ref>http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/lectures/node117.html</ref> Newton's theory can also explain this perihelion by making tiny adjustments to parameters in the gravitational equation.

General relativity predicts twice as much bending in light as it passes near massive objects than Newton's theory might predict.<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm</ref> This phenomenon is known as [[gravitational lensing]]. A large number of instances of gravitational lensing have been observed, and it is now a standard astronomical tool.<ref>http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/news/grav_lens.html</ref><ref>http://astro.berkeley.edu/~jcohn/lens.html</ref><ref>http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/glgallery.html</ref> Note, however, that the extent of bending of light predicted by Newton's theory is open to debate, and depends on assumptions about the nature of light for gravitational purposes.<ref>http://cosmictimes.gsfc.nasa.gov/1919/guide/gravity_bends_starlight.html</ref>

In 1972, scientists flew extremely accurate clocks ("atomic clocks") around the world in both directions on commercial airlines, and claimed to observe relativistic time dilation; the eastbound clock gained 273 ns and the westbound clock lost 59 ns, matching the predictions of general relativity to within experimental accuracy.<ref>[http://www.answers.com/topic/hafele-keating-experiment Hafele-Keating Experiment]</ref> However, the inventor of the atomic clock, Louis Essen, declared that the experiment was inaccurate.<ref>Louis Essen, Electron. Wireless World 94 (1988) 238.</ref> Dr A. G. Kelly examined the raw data from the experiment and declared it inconclusive.<ref>A. G. Kelly,Reliability of Relativistic Effect Tests on Airborne Clocks, Monograph No.3 Feb.1996, The Institution of Engineers of Ireland, ISBN 1-898012-22-9</ref> The Nobel Committee chose not to honor this experiment for the significance that was claimed.

Despite [[censorship]] of dissent about relativity, evidence contrary to the theory is discussed outside of [[liberal]] universities.<ref>http://scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=8&idContribution=922</ref>

==Experiments that Fail to Prove Relativity==

Predictions of general relativity turn out to be obscure and difficult to test. The two most famous predictions were the bending of light in a gravitational field and the precession of the perihelia of orbiting planets.

*The first of these was famously tested during a total eclipse in 1919. That test was somewhat muddled by an incorrect initial calculation, by several people including Einstein himself, of what the effect would be, and some "cherry picking" of the data to be used.<ref>''Einstein's Luck'', John Waller, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-860719-9</ref> The data selection could be considered "manipulation" or "fudging", by a person (Arthur Eddington) who had a personal stake in the outcome. His analysis techniques would not pass muster today.

:It should be noted that pre-relativistic (Newtonian) physics may also predict a bending, of half the observed value, depending on whether one uses the 17th century "corpuscular" formulation or the 19th century "wave" formulation.

:Nevertheless, it has been verified with ever-increasing precision in subsequent eclipses, and in the observations of quasar 3C273.

*The second "classical" test of general relativity was the advance of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury. There are many complex effects contributing to this, including gravitational perturbations from other planets and the effect of the oblateness of the Sun. These are hard to calculate accurately, but, by 1900 it was known quite accurately that there was an "anomalous" precession, that is, a precession beyond all other known effects, of 43 arc seconds per century. This is a very tiny effect, but astronomical measurements were sufficiently accurate by that time to show it clearly.

:Increasingly precise measurements of the precession demonstrate that it conflicts with General Relativity, despite claims of relativists for decades that it predicted the precession accurately in the amount of <math>3{}v^2/c^2</math> revolutions per planet's "year", where <math>v</math> is the planet's average orbital speed.<ref>That is a simple approximation, designed to relate the precession to the planet's speed relative to the speed of light. A more accurate approximation is <math>\frac{3GM}{c^2 a(1-e^2)}</math>, where a is the semi-major axis and e is the eccentricity.</ref> The conflict is greater than the margin of error, and many relativists avoid the discrepancy rather than address it.

==Experimental and Observational Evidence Confirming Relativity==

The different effects predicted by special relativity, compared to classical formulations, are extremely tiny. Most relativistic effects are negligible at the speeds of ordinary phenomena observed by humans. The effects only become significant when the speeds involved are a significant fraction of the speed of light, which is <math>3 \times 10^8</math> meters per second—such speeds are called ''relativistic''. (However, it's worth noting that ordinary magnetism can be considered an effect of relativity, dictated by the need for electrostatic theory to be correct under relativity. The speed of light in fact appears in the formulas ([[Maxwell's Equations]]) governing electricity and magnetism, though these equations were developed long before relativity was proposed.)

Because the effects of relativity are so tiny, scientists have been devising sophisticated and sensitive tests ever since the theory was formulated in 1905.

The most famous experiment, and the one that is commonly cited in textbooks as the experiment that established the case for relativity,<ref>Though relativity did not actually originate from this experiment</ref> was the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]]. This showed that all observers will obtain the same measured value for the speed of light (3x108 meters per second) no matter what their state of motion. This is the first of the two fundamental principles:
#''The [[speed of light]] is constant for all observers, regardless of their velocities relative to each other.''
#''The laws of physics are identical in all reference frames.''
(The second is just a restatement of Galilean relativity, that is, the "common sense" that had been accepted for centuries.)
A naive "common sense" interpretation of Galilean relativity would require that measurements of the speed of light (or anything else) by different observers would get results that differ by the observers' relative speeds, and hence that principle #1 can't be true. Special relativity fixes this apparent paradox.

All of special relativity derives for these two principles, plus assumptions of exact conservation of momentum and energy in all cases.

*At the end of Einstein's original 1905 paper [http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/ "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend its Energy Content?"], he speculates on the possibility that the equation <math>E = m c^2</math>, which would normally be very hard to verify, could be verified with the extremely high energies of the newly discovered phenomenon of radioactivity.<ref>This equation is not related to [[quantum mechanics]].</ref> In the 1910s, with the invention of the mass spectrometer, it became possible to measure masses of nuclei accurately. This led to the clearing up of the mystery of atomic masses not being exact integers,and strongly suggested the existence of a "mass defect" (or "packing fraction") consistent with the mass-energy equivalence. In the 1930s, experiments with known nuclear reactions showed a very accurate correlation between the masses of the nuclei involved and the energy released. See [[Quantitative Analysis of Alpha Decay]].

*Another prediction of special relativity was time dilation in rapidly moving objects. This effect was most famously verified in the anomalously slow decay of relativistic cosmic muons.<ref>Some have suggested that other explanations are possible for this effect. We are trying to track this down.</ref> Time dilation has since been verified many times, and is routinely taken into account in all high-energy nuclear physics experiments, as in Hadron collision experiments.<ref>Experiments specifically designed to check dilation are rarely conducted any more.</ref>

[[Image:Cassini-science-289.jpg|right|thumb|The Shapiro effect: A spacecraft signal dipping into a gravity well around the [[Sun]] is delayed slightly.]]
As the 20th century progressed, tests of general relativity were proposed.

*One important "classical" test of general relativity was the advance of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury. There are many complex effects contributing to this, including gravitational perturbations from other planets and the effect of the oblateness of the Sun. These are hard to calculate accurately, but, by 1900 it was known quite accurately that there was an "anomalous" precession, that is, a precession beyond all other known effects, of 43 arc seconds per century. This is a very tiny effect, but astronomical measurements were sufficiently accurate by that time to show it clearly.

:This created quite a problem—physicists by then were accustomed to having their theories check out very accurately. One proposal that was made, by Simon Newcomb and Asaph Hall, was that the exponent of the radius in the gravitational formula wasn't exactly 2. He showed that, by choosing an exponent of <math>2+\delta</math>, the precession, as a fraction of a full orbit per planet's year, is <math>\delta/2</math>. By setting <math>\delta</math> to .000000157, that is, an exponent of 2.000000157, Newcomb was able to get a precession of .000000078 revolutions per Mercury year, or 43 arcseconds per Earth year. Whatever value is chosen for <math>\delta\,</math>, it gives the same precession, per revolution, for all orbiting bodies, but gravitational effects from other planets diminish that effect the further the planet is from the sun.

:A good approximation for the precession under general relativity is <math>\frac{3GM}{c^2 a(1-e^2)}</math> revolutions per planet's "year", where a is the semi-major axis and e is the eccentricity. A simpler but less accurate one is <math>3{}v^2/c^2</math>, where <math>v</math> is the planet's average orbital speed.

:While Newcomb's theory, and general relativity, don't lead to closed-form solutions, both theories can be solved numerically to as much precision as one desires.

:The following table shows some approximate parameters for the planets. Note that Mercury has the smallest orbit, and the fastest speed. Precession of planets other than Mercury is extremely hard to measure, but measurements of the actual anomalous precessions are in good agreement.<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Planet
!Period, seconds x 106
!Semimajor axis, meters x 109
!Speed, meters/second x 103
!Gravitational force, Newtons per kilogram
!Anomalous precession, arcseconds per (Earth) century, pure Newtonian mechanics
!Anomalous precession, Newtonian with exponent of 2.000000157
!Anomalous precession, general relativity
!Measured anomalous precession (estimated uncertainty)<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm</ref>
|-
|Mercury
|7.57
|58.9
|48
|.039
|0
|43
|43
|43.5(5)
|-
|Venus
|19.6
|108
|35
|.011
|0
|16.6
|9
|8(5)
|-
|Earth
|31.6
|150
|30
|.006
|0
|10.3
|4
|5(1)
|-
|Mars
|59.3
|227.9
|24
|.0025
|0
|5.5
|1.4
|
|-
|Jupiter
|374
|778.4
|13
|.0002
|0
|0.87
|0.07
|
|-
|Saturn
|929
|1426
|9.7
|.00006
|0
|0.35
|0.014
|
|-
|Uranus
|2651
|2870
|6.8
|.000016
|0
|0.12
|0.002
|
|-
|Neptune
|5200
|4498
|5.5
|.000007
|0
|0.063
|0.0008
|
|}

:Considering only the ''anomalous'' precession, that is, the precession that remains after all known other factors (other planets and asteroids, solar oblateness) have been accounted for, and using very accurate calculations rather than the approximations given above, general relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04 arcseconds per century. Some observed values, as of 2008, are:
::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijpers 2008]]
:These error bars, and that of the general relativity prediction, all overlap.

*Another is the ''Shapiro effect'', involving time delay in radio signals passing through the gravity well of the Sun or a planet. Various spacecraft have confirmed this.

*Another is ''gravitational time dilation''. This is an effect separate from the time dilation of special relativity. It was tested by the Pound-Rebka experiment in 1959.

*Later in the 20th century, even more subtle phenomena were tested. One was the phenomenon of ''gravitational radiation'', or "gravitational waves". These waves are incredibly difficult to observe, and had never been observed until 2015. But extremely dense binary pulsars radiate gravitational waves with sufficient energy loss that, even though we can't detect the waves from Earth, we can see the effect of the energy loss from the radiation. The extreme precision of the timing of pulses from pulsars makes it possible to observe their energy loss with great accuracy. Observations by Hulse and Taylor of the pulsar pair known as B1913+16, if assumptions are made,<ref>Similar to the way Kepler chose orbital parameters to fit observed planetary motion to his theory</ref> could make the energy loss appear consistent with the predicted radiation. The rotating pulsars have moved such that Earth is now out of the beams, so those observations have been discontinued.

*In late 2015 (and announced in 2016), the LIGO instruments directly detected gravitational waves. See [[Gravitational waves]].

*An additional test of general relativity was performed with radio signals to the Cassini spacecraft.<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6956/full/nature01997.html</ref>

*Two other effects, ''geodetic precession'' (also known as "de Sitter precession"), and ''frame dragging'' (also known as the "Lense-Thirring effect") were tested by the "Gravity Probe B" satellite early in the 21st century.<ref>http://prl.aps.org/accepted/L/ea070Y8dQ491d22a28828c95f660a57ac82e7d8c0</ref><ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/306430</ref><ref>http://www.nap.edu/html/gpb/summary.html</ref><ref>http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/73870/title/Gravity_Probe_B_finally_pays_off_</ref><ref>http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/</ref><ref>http://einstein.stanford.edu/</ref><ref>http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/the-gravity-probe-b-bailout</ref><ref>http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/06/nasa-concludes-gravity-probe-b-space-time-experiment-proves-e/</ref> The precision required to observe this was phenomenal. The results were announced on May 4, 2011.

{{clear}}

==Predicted consequences of the Theories==
===Time dilation===

[[Image:Light cone.png|right|thumb|Light-cone diagram]]
One important consequence of SR's postulates is that an observer in one reference frame will observe a clock in another frame to be "ticking" more slowly than in the observer's own frame. This can be proven mathematically using basic geometry, if the postulates are physically true without exception.

The length of an event <math>t</math>, as seen by a (relative) stationary observer observing an event is given by:

<math> t = \frac{t_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math>

Where
:<math>t_0</math> is the "proper time" or the length of the event in the observed frame of reference.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

Evidence for time dilation was discovered by studying [[muon decay]]. [[Muons]] are [[subatomic]] [[particles]] with a very short [[halflife]] (1.53 microseconds at rest) and a very fast speed (0.994c). By putting muon detectors at the top (D1) and bottom (D2) of a mountain with a separation of 1900m, scientists could measure accurately the proportion of muons reaching the second detector in comparison to the first. The proportion found was different to the proportion that was calculated without taking into account relativistic effects.

Using the equation for [[exponential decay]], they could use this proportion to calculate the time taken for the muons to decay, relative to the muon. Then, using the time dilation equation they could then work out the dilated time. The dilated time showed a good correlation with the time it took the muons to reach the second sensor, thereby supporting the existence of time dilation.

The time taken for a muon to travel from D1 to D2 as measured by a stationary observer is:

<math> t = \frac{s}{v} = \frac{1900}{0.994\times(3\times10^{8})} = 6.37\mu\textrm{s} </math>

The fraction of muons arriving at D2 in comparison to D1 was 0.732. (Given by <math> \frac{N}{N_0} = 0.732 </math>)

Since (from the equation for exponential decay) <math> \frac{N}{N_{0}} = e^{-\lambda t_{0}} </math> then

<math> t_{0} = \frac {ln(0.732)}{ln (0.2)} \times 1.53\times 10^{-6} = 0.689\mu\textrm{s}</math>

This gives the time for the proportion of decay to occur for an observer who is stationary, relative to the muon.

Putting this into the time dilation equation gives:

<math> t = \frac{t_{0}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}} = \frac{0.689 \times{10^{-6}}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{0.994^{2}}{1^{2}}}} = 6.3\times 10^{-6}\textrm{s}</math>

This is in good agreement with the value calculated above, thereby providing evidence to support time dilation.

====Time Dilation and Creation Science====

{{main|Starlight problem#Humphreys.27_model}}

Creation scientists such as physicists Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] and Dr. [[John Hartnett]] have used relativistic time dilation to explain how the earth can be only 6,000 years old even though cosmological data (background radiation, supernovae, etc.) set a much older age for the universe.

===Length contraction===
When two inertial reference frames move past each other in a straight line with constant relative velocity, an observer in one reference frame would observe a metre rule in the other frame to be shorter along the direction parallel to the relative motion.

The length, <math>l</math>, of an object as seen by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:

<math> l = l_{0} \sqrt{1- \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}</math>

Where
:<math>l_0</math> is the "proper length" or the length of the object in the observed frame of reference.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

===Mass increase===

For decades the theory of relativity taught that as a body moves with increasing velocity its [[mass]] also increases.<ref>For example, this was taught as recently as in the 1991 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica.</ref>

Under this view, the mass, <math>m</math>, of an object as detected by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:

:<math> m = \frac{m_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math>

Where
:<math>m_0</math> is the "rest mass" or the mass of the object measured by an observer in the same reference frame as the object.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity of the object.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

Since speed is relative, it follows that two observers in different inertial reference frames may disagree on the mass and kinetic energy of a body. Since all inertial reference frames are treated on an equal footing, it follows that mass and energy are interchangeable.

In recent years most physicists have shifted away from Einstein's original reliance on relativistic mass and his suggestion that mass increases{{Citation needed|date=January 2012}}. Instead, most physicists today teach that

:<math>F=\frac{d}{d\tau} p</math>

where <math>p</math> is the momentum defined by <math>\gamma m v</math>, <math>\gamma</math> is the standard Lorentz factor, and <math>\tau</math> is the proper time. Force F defined this way is a vector and thus can handle the directional aspect of the relativistic effects better than the concept of relativistic mass can.

The abandonment by physicists of the concept of relativistic mass, however, has the consequence of undermining the traditional claim under relativity that

:<math>m - m_0 = \frac{E}{c^2}</math>

also popularly known as

:<math>E = m c^2</math>

Now a concept of the 4-momentum <math>p</math> of a particle is taught, such that the square of the magnitude of <math>p</math> satisfies:

<math>||p||^2 = -p_x^2-p_y^2-p_z^2+E^2 = m_0^2c^4</math>

in any inertial reference frame. The magnitude of the 4-momentum, in any inertial frame, equals the rest mass <math>m_0</math> of the particle (in units where <math>c=1</math>).

== Paradoxes ==

The predictions of the theory of relativity throw up a number of apparent paradoxes and anomalies relating to the effects of time dilatation and length contraction. Whilst these paradoxes are consistent with the theory, they are contrary to everyday human experience and therefore can seem like impossibilities.

=== The Twin Paradox ===

The twin paradox is usually stated as a thought experiment involving two twins, one of whom is sent on a long journey in a spacecraft travelling at close to the speed of light, whilst the other remains on Earth. Time dilatation means that the travelling twin, on his return to Earth, is younger that the twin who has remained at home. However, because neither twin is in a special position - each being in an inertial frame of reference - the reverse must also be true, and so the twin remaining on Earth must be younger. Hence each twin is younger than the other - a paradox.

The problem can be resolved in two ways. One is to examine the effects of General Relativity: to come back to Earth, the travelling twin must undergo acceleration in order to reverse his course, causing temporal effects which make him permanently the younger. Alternatively, it can be explained entirely using Special Relativity and noting that the twins are not in symmetrical situations: the one on earth has remained in a single inertial frame of reference, whilst the travelling twin has travelled in two.<ref>http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm</ref>

=== The Ehrenfest Paradox ===

The Ehrenfest Paradox considers a rigid wheel or disc rotating a bout its axis at high speed (somewhat like a bicycle wheel spinning freely on its axle). The rim of the wheel travels at close to the speed of light and therefore undergoes length contraction, whereas the radius (the spokes, for the bicycle wheel) does not. Hence the circumference is no longer equal to 2<big><math>\pi</math></big>r, which is paradoxical.

The apparent paradox was finally resolved in 1975 by the Norwegian scientist [[Øyvind Grøn]].<ref>http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=224955</ref>

== Variable Speed of Light ==

The Theory of Relativity implies that physical constants like c, the speed of light in a vacuum, have remained constant. But at least one study suggests that physical constants, and possibly even the speed of light, have changed as the universe has aged.<ref>James Glanz and Dennis Overbye, "Cosmic Laws Like Speed of Light Might Be Changing, a Study Finds," August 15, 2001.[http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/15/science/15PHYS.html?ex=1185076800&en=d6467b6e3e346796&ei=5070]</ref>

"For the first time, scientists have experimentally demonstrated that sound pulses can travel at velocities faster than the speed of light, c. William Robertson's team from Middle Tennessee State University also showed that the group velocity of sound waves can become infinite, and even negative. ... Although such results may at first appear to violate special relativity (Einstein's law that no material object can exceed the speed of light), the actual significance of these experiments is a little different. These types of superluminal phenomena, Robertson et al. explain, violate neither causality nor special relativity, nor do they enable information to travel faster than c. In fact, theoretical work had predicted that the superluminal speed of the group velocity of sound waves should exist. 'The key to understanding this seeming paradox is that no wave energy exceeded the speed of light,' said Robertson."<ref>http://www.physorg.com/news88249076.html</ref>

"A team of researchers from the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) has successfully demonstrated, for the first time, that it is possible to control the speed of light – both slowing it down and speeding it up – in an optical fiber, using off-the-shelf instrumentation in normal environmental conditions. Their results, to be published in the August 22 issue of Applied Physics Letters, could have implications that range from optical [[computing]] to the fiber-optic telecommunications industry."<ref>http://www.scienceblog.com/light.html</ref> Both slowing down and speeding up of light within a substance other than a vacuum is made possible, because the light travels through the material, and that material affects the speed of light, i.e. a photon hits an electron, which then exits and emits a slightly lower energy photon out in the direction that the original photon was traveling, thus maintaining conservation of momentum. No matter how transparent an object may appear, it radically impacts the speed of the light traveling through it, as demonstrated by the refractive production of a rainbow by a crystal, which Newton himself discovered.

This apparent change in speed can be explained, however, by noting that the constant c refers to the speed of light in a vacuum, i.e., when it is unimpeded. The speed of light when traveling through physical media is, in fact, variable.

"A pair of German physicists claim to have broken the speed of light - an achievement that would undermine our entire understanding of space and time. ... Dr Nimtz told New Scientist magazine: 'For the time being, this is the only violation of special relativity that I know of.'"<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/16/scispeed116.xml</ref>

==Pending research==

Today some physicists are working on hypothesizing how general relativity might have related to the other three forces of nature during the first fraction of a second of the [[Big Bang]]. Two of the more commonly studied attempts are [[string theory]] and [[loop quantum gravity]], but they have failed to produce any evidence that science mandates a science must have, and both typically take large amounts of work to even conform to what scientists believe. Critics increasingly point out that string theory and loop quantum gravity are largely untestable and unfalsifiable, and thus potentially unscientific under the principles of science advanced by [[Karl Popper]].<ref>See, for example, ''Not Even Wrong'', by Peter Woit</ref>

Relativity continues to be tested and some physics professors remain skeptical of the theory, such as University of Maryland physics professor Carroll Alley, who served as the principle physicist on the Apollo lunar project.<ref>http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/21jul_llr.htm</ref>

== Political aspects of relativity ==

Some [[liberal]] politicians have extrapolated the theory of relativity to metaphorically justify their own political agendas. For example, [[Democratic]] [[President of the United States of America|President]] [[Barack Obama]] helped publish an article by liberal law professor [[Laurence Tribe]] to apply the relativistic concept of "curvature of space" to promote a broad legal right to [[abortion]].<ref>Tribe, acknowledging help by Obama, argued that the [[Constitution]] should be interpreted to establish a right to federally funded [[abortion]] and that, more generally, ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' does not go far enough. They insisted that a relativistic "curvature of space" could achieve this result by expanding application of the [[Constitution]] based on its impact on personal choice. "The ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' opinion ignored the way in which laws regulating pregnant women may shape the entire pattern of relationships among men, women, and children. It conceptualized abortion not in terms of the intensely public question of the subordination of women to men through the exploitation of pregnancy, but in terms of the purportedly private question of how women might make intimately personal decisions about their bodies and their lives. That vision described a part of the truth, but only what might be called the Newtonian part. ... [A] change in the surrounding legal setting can constitute state action that most threatens the sphere of personal choice. And it is a 'curved space' perspective on how law operates that leads one to focus less on the visible lines of legal force and more on how those lines are bent and directed by the law's geometry." Laurence H. Tribe, The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn from Modern Physics, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 16-17 (1989).</ref> As of June 2008, over 170 law review articles have cited this [[liberal]] application of the theory of relativity to legal arguments.<ref>Search conducted by [[User:Aschlafly]] in the LEXIS database "US Law Reviews and Journals, Combined," conducted June 1, 2008.</ref> Applications of the theory of relativity to change morality have also been common.<ref>"Mistakenly, in the minds of many, the theory of relativity became relativism."[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38081]</ref> Moreover, there is an unmistakable effort to censor or ostracize criticism of relativity.<ref>Although the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|liberally biased Wikipedia]] contains lengthy criticisms of the subjects of many entries, and even though publications like ''The Economist'' recognize the lack of scientific satisfaction in the theory (see, e.g., "Weighing the Universe," The Economist (Jan. 25, 2007)), Wikipedia's entry on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Relativity Theory of Relativity] omits one word of criticism.</ref>

Physicist [[Robert Dicke]] of Princeton University was a prominent critic<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html</ref> of general relativity, and Dicke's alternative "has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."<ref>"Initially a popular alternative to General Relativity, the Brans-Dicke theory lost favor as it became clear that omega must be very large-an artificial requirement in some views. Nevertheless, the theory has remained a paradigm for the introduction of scalar fields into gravitational theory, and as such has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."[http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/Essay_bekenstein.html]</ref> Despite being one of the most accomplished physicists in the 20th century, Dicke was repeatedly passed over for a [[Nobel Prize]], and in at least one case Dicke was insulted by the award being granted to others for contributions more properly credited to Dicke.

There has been little recognition by the Nobel Prize committee of either theory of relativity, and particularly scant recognition of the Theory of General Relativity. A dubious 1993 Nobel prize in physics was awarded Hulse and Taylor for supposedly finding the first evidence of gravitational waves in the orbital decay of the binary pulsar PSR1913+16.<ref>Weisberg, Joel M.; Taylor, Joseph H. (2003), "The Relativistic Binary Pulsar B1913+16"", in Bailes, M.; Nice, D. J.; Thorsett, S. E., Proceedings of "Radio Pulsars," Chania, Crete, August, 2002, ASP Conference Series</ref> A close reading of the paper reveals that that is based heavily on assumptions in trying to retrofit the data to the theory.

===Government Support for Relativistic research===
The Federal Government has funded the building of two gravity wave detectors: The first to test the principle, and the second (upgrade) to actually perform measurements. As a result of this work, on February 11, 2016, the LIGO team reported successful detection of gravitational waves caused by the merging of two black holes.<ref>https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160211</ref>

{{Relativity}}

==See also==
*[[Attempts to prove E=mc²]]
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]
*[[Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]
*[[Quantitative Analysis of Alpha Decay]]
*[[Gravitational waves]]

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Science]]

==External links ==
*[http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity, by H.A. Lorentz.]
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com Relativity Science Calculator - Learn Special Relativity Mathematics ] The mathematics of special relativity presented in as simple and comprehensive manner possible within philosophical and historical contexts.
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com/history_of_time_clocks.shtml Relativity Science Calculator - Philosophic Question: are clocks and time separable?]
*[http://www.relativityscience.com/twin_clock_paradox.shtml Relativity Science Calculator - Twin Clock Paradox]

Talk:E=mc²

2016-09-02T13:31:16Z

PeterHockey: Added quote that I forgot

*<big><big><big>[[Talk:E=mc²/Archive 1|Archive 1]]</big></big></big>
*<big><big><big>[[Talk:E=mc²/Archive 2|Archive 2]]</big></big></big>

== A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft and Walton ==

More than two years ago, I posed the following questions for Andy Schlafly to answer. I'd still appreciate an answer by him, making my wait worthwhile.

'''1.''' Do you accept that the mass of the Lithium-kernel (7Li), of alpha-particles (4He) and of protons (1H) can be measured fairly accurately, as these are charged particles?

'''2.''' Do you accept the measurements for the mass of the particles as used by Cockcroft¹ and Walton, i.e.
:::{|
!particle
!mass
|-
|1H||1.0072 amu
|-
|4He||4.0011 amu
|-
|7Li||7.0130 amu
|}
If not, which values do you think to be right?

'''3.''' Do you agree that before the reaction the mass of the particles involved was 8.0202 amu?

'''4.''' Do you agree that after the reaction the mass of the particles involved is 8.00220 amu?

'''5.''' Do you agree that there is a mass decrease of 0.0180 amu?

'''6.''' Before the experiment, the Li was at rest and the proton had a kinetic energy of less than 1MeV. Do you accept these values?

'''7.''' After the experiment, a pair of alpha-particles was observed, both having an kinetic energy of 8.6MeV. Do you think that this value is correct?

'''8.''' Can you tell me where the mass went? Can you tell me where the energy came from?

'''9.''' If your answer to question 8. is ''no'' in both accounts, than my answer is that there is a theory which explains the conversion of mass to energy, even if you don't like it!

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:33, 23 June 2014 (EDT)

The list of administrators of Conservapedia includes [[User:RSchlafly]] ("I'm related to Andrew Schlafly") and [[User:PhyllisS]] ("Phy Schlafly"). Both are knowledgeable about this stuff. Why don't you get their input on this article? And could you please answer the questions above? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:50, 23 July 2014 (EDT)

Another five months later, still nothing. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 07:42, 21 December 2014 (EST)

== Robert Dicke ==

I want to revisit the statement: ''For example, Robert Dicke, perhaps the greatest physicist of the 20th century, was denied a Nobel Prize because he doubted the Theory of Relativity.''

*"perhaps the greatest physicist of the 20th century" - according to whom?
*"was denied a Nobel Prize because he doubted the Theory of Relativity" - where is the evidence for this claim?

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:30, 20 February 2015 (EST)

:*Read also the article of [[Robert Dicke]]: "Indeed, Dicke should have won the Nobel Prize for one of his many other achievements also (such as his laser work), but was similarly denied recognition." --[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 06:56, 21 March 2015 (EDT)
::Thanks, I looked into it. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:22, 22 March 2015 (EDT)

== E=mc² is regularly tested, using the best equipment available ==

Take for instance the [[National Institute of Standards and Technology]]'s summer-school of 2009, which allows grad-students and junior faculty to get their hands on their newest equipment: Here, NIST-physicist Maynard Scott Dewey shows how this can be used to test the equation E=mc² directly ([http://www.ncnr.nist.gov/summerschool/ss09/pdf/Dewey_FP09_Part2b.pdf "''Neutron Binding Energy Measurements for a Direct Test of E=mc²''" (pdf)]) - and with a very good precision.

So, the formula is tested time and time again, it is regularly used by many physicists and engineers, regardless of the political position. That makes more than "liberal claptrap"... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:28, 18 March 2015 (EDT)

== Mass is a measure of an object's inertia, in other words its resistance to acceleration. In contrast, the intrinsic energy of an object [...][has] nothing to do with gravity. ==

This juxtaposition is very painful: Why should it by problematic that the "intrinsic energy" has nothing to do with gravity, when the first part talks about the object's inertia? Where is the "contrast"? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:34, 18 March 2015 (EDT)

== Taking out redundant sentence ==

I have taken the liberty of restoring (almost exactly) my version of 21:14, 8 June 2015. The previous version had what was essentially the same sentence twice, consecutively. It said:
:However, it is impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of this equation.

:Political pressure, however, has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of this nonsensical equation.
This can't possibly be what you wanted. The version I left in was the second one, with "Political pressure", and "nonsensical". I disagree with "nonsensical", but it's your website. I agree with the near-impossibility of anyone doubting this equation to successfully pursue an academic career in science, though probably for the reasons you think.

But I have taken out the word "since". It makes no sense in the current context; it may have made sense in an earlier context.

Now it's true that the longer intro paragraph was more "full", but that's only because it had the redundant sentence. I think the intro that I have left is full enough. It has "nonsensical", and it has the famous "claptrap" sentence. This must be the intro that you want. OK? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:47, 11 June 2015 (EDT)

:You did more than just that. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 23:47, 11 June 2015 (EDT)

==Change the article==
As it stands, the article itself is confusing. Items of info were placed in a haphazard manner, without regard to structure or flow. Try re-doing it this way, in the following order:
:Do a simple statement to introduce the subject in the first paragraph.
:Describe in detail what it is, and what it supposed to do.
:Describe the history of it, who first postulated it and why; who else seconded it.
:Describe anything that successfully uses it, confirms it, and so on.
:Describe anything the rejects it, criticisms of it, proof that it is wrong, and so on. It could be proof that it is wrong only in specific applications where it was tried and failed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:00, 15 June 2015 (EDT)

== People don't own formulas ==

No, they don't. But since the time of [[Pythagoras]], certain formulas, laws, and theorems are associated with certain people (not always correctly). While [[Einstein]] doesn't own [[E=mc²]], it is ''his'' formula. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 02:59, 6 August 2015 (EDT)

:What about Friedrich Hasenöhrl? Why doesn't he get any credit? It's not like he's lost in the mists of history. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 15:47, 6 August 2015 (EDT)

::Same reason that [[Tartaglia]] isn't credited for ''[[Cardano]]'s method'': history isn't just (and people like easy names). --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 16:08, 6 August 2015 (EDT)

== PBS's absurd statement ==

Would anyone like to defend the absurd statement by PBS that:
{{cquote|it's almost as if the ultimate energy an object will contain should be revealed when you look at its mass times c squared, or its mc².}}
--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 14:01, 8 August 2015 (EDT)

:I agree with you - I don't think that this way of trying to make the formula plausible works.
:BTW: while we are posing and answering questions - what about [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft and Walton]]? I'm still waiting for your answer! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:53, 8 August 2015 (EDT)

The PBS statement quoted above, with it's "ultimate energy" stuff and "will be revealed" stuff, is indeed rather stupid. That whole section needs to be cleaned up. But you need to be aware that this equation, like it or not, claptrap or not, correct or not, experimentally verified or not, theoretically proven or not, looms very large in the public's consciousness. (And I might add, the name of Einstein is widely associated with it, which is the point I made recently that you reverted.)

Most of what the public knows about it is ludicrously oversimplified and just wrong. The popular notion that I find most overwhelmingly stupid is the business about "it unlocks the secret of the atomic bomb". But the other quotes are nearly as bad.

The "Description for the layman" section and the immediately following "Popularization of E=mc²" are really just a synopsis of this foolishness. I think that material needs to be in the article, but put into perspective as oversimplified popularization. I don't agree with the edit comment "this is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Phrases like 'universally connected in the public's consciousness' are non-encyclopedic, and speculative at best." The public's consciousness of this equation is an important part of an article about it, unless you are writing a serious scientific journal to be read only by scientists. We need to acknowledge that it's a "meme", and try to put that into perspective.

The "Description for the layman" section gives four popular quotes, out of an article containing ten quotes. Of the ten quotes, only one is actually lucid, straightforward, and factually correct; ane that is the one (not one of the four) by Sheldon Glashow. The others are what one would expect if you ask scientists to explain it for laymen.

Assuming that it's OK with you for the page to acknowledge that it's well known in society at large, I'd like to leave the "Description for the layman" section in, with a prefatory note that it is extremely widely misunderstood, and that attempts to explain it to the general public almost invariably fall flat. Then give four examples as before, but adding Glashow and removing Arkani-Hamed. I'd also like to leave in the reference to the PBS article, but choose a much better quote than that "ultimate energy" nonsense. And the "energy it carried would be proportional to its mass times 100 [that is, v] squared" stuff is just plain wrong. And stupid. And unhelpful.

So can you give me a couple of days to think about this? Unless you want the whole "E=mc^2 in the public's consciousness" material to go away, in which case I won't bother.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 21:42, 8 August 2015 (EDT)

:In response to SamHB, I appreciate your thoughtful remarks, but I didn't put the PBS quotation in the entry. Someone else did (I'm not bothering to check who, and don't want to criticize anyone for it). Other quotations may be better, but it is important first to clearly state what the assumptions are underlying the formula. Does it work backwards by trying to conserve energy within the framework of the Theory of Relativity? If so, then the formula derivation really is circular, and the mass is not really a meaningful rest mass. Instead, the mass is something manipulated to try to conserve energy from different frames of reference.
::I really think it's better to have a synopsis of the "pop-sci" garbage, and a debunking thereof, '''first''', an exposition of what the formula means, its assumptions (they're really simple) '''second''', and how we know it is true '''third'''. I know this is, on the face of it, a distasteful order, but the "pop-sci" stuff has so overwhelmed the public's consciousness that we need to address that first. People will be attracted to the article because the equation is so famous, not because they really want to measure isotopic weights. Technical details at the beginning will turn them off, and they will never get to the debunking that's really important. So, if it's OK with you, I'm going to clean up the "pop-sci" stuff first, and leave it at the front. OK? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 14:12, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

:In response to AugustO, I don't doubt that some experiments may by chance have results consistent with E=mc2, just as a broken clock occasionally has the right time of day. The challenge is to demonstrate the formula across a diversity of experiments and circumstances, which of course has not been successfully done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:13, 8 August 2015 (EDT)

::This seems to work for the [[mass defect]] of all elements - astonishingly accurate for a broken clock! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 10:20, 11 February 2016 (EST)

==<strike>C is a constant, right?</strike>==
Ok, I'm getting dizzy reading through all the attacks on this page. I'll ignore all them for now, and just say that as I understand it, <strike>"c" stands for constant, not the speed of light.</strike> I'm no scientist, so I will not try continue offering suggestions. I'll leave it at this: I don't know if the idea behind it is true, and I don't even know what the formula means. However, I believe it refers the energy contained in matter, since certain matter/energy conversions are possible. Can we try to refine this a bit to state what it is/is not, then state why some might not agree? It's up to all you who have made this page, but it seems to be one thing that everyone uses against CP, and from my limited understanding of the topic, I think I just might see why. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 14:26, 9 February 2016 (EST) 
''EDIT: Okay, my mistake, "c" is the speed of light. Still, though, this is a theory of the energy contained in matter. You burn wood, you get energy. Perhpas this is an accurate represntaion, maybe not, but at least it's not as bad off as I thought.''--[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 14:38, 9 February 2016 (EST)

:Can you be more specific about "all the attacks on this page" and "one thing that everyone uses against CP"? I'm not denying those attacks, but are you referring to all the attacks, from the outside world, against CP's pages on relativity (which you can get quite a lot of by Googling "Conservapedia+relativity")? Or are you referring to all the attacks on relativity by pages here at CP (such as the "liberal claptrap" reference)? Or are you referring to the apparent opposition between the part of this article above the table of contents and the part below?

:AugustO and I wrote essentially all of the material below the table of contents. We put a huge amount of meticulous work into it. I believe it adequately explains things in terms that non-experts can mostly understand. We try to stay away from the kinds of imprecise statements about "energy contained in matter" that one finds elsewhere. Thinking in terms of "this is a theory of the energy contained in matter" is not a clear way of thinking about the equation. Do you find the presentation confusing? Or perhaps you find other articles confusing? Or you find contradictions among the various articles on the subject confusing? I want to make this article give a satisfactory explanation. Please let me know how I can improve it.

:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 16:45, 9 February 2016 (EST)

::I was general by design as to where the attacks are from. Mainly, I see the from outside, on various IQ voids known as liberal blogs like this one [https://cpmonitor.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/cp.jpg]. However, there are some rather opinionated and strong words exchanged in this talk area as well. I guess I don't have any other advice, if this is the way you want to go with it. If I think of anything, I'll let you know.--[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 18:37, 9 February 2016 (EST)

:::Got it. Yes, the criticism and arguing within CP is absolutely dwarfed by the criticism from outside. I referred to that in what I wrote in the Community Portal: [[Conservapedia:Community_Portal#Two_millionth_page_view_for_the_.22Counterexamples_to_Relativity.22_page]]. [[Counterexamples_to_Relativity|That page]] appears to be a lightning rod for criticism and scorn, and the "cpmonitor" web site is just one example. Very few of those two million views are from people who agree with it—my survey of Google references got 8000 hits, of which 98% were negative.

:::The strong words that you see on this and other pages represent an attempt to fix the problem. There is no simple solution.

:::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:16, 10 February 2016 (EST)

::::There is no unified theory of mass and electromagnetism. A century and many billions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted looking for one. Yet some people cling to the implausible equation that pretends otherwise. Such false beliefs crowd out the truth, and I doubt there are many people who continue to read the [[Bible]] after falling for the falsehood of E=mc2.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:41, 10 February 2016 (EST)
:::::Almost on cue gravity waves are discovered, a huge step in unifying gravity with the other forces.[http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/gravitational-waves-exist-heres-how-scientists-finally-found-them][http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35524440][https://www.theguardian.com/science/across-the-universe/live/2016/feb/11/gravitational-wave-announcement-latest-physics-einstein-ligo-black-holes-live] As for the implausible equation, can you explain how a bomb weighing 4 tons managed to release the equivalent of 15,000 tons of TNT? The Bible, fine book that it is is not going to help when it comes to modern science. I accept there is some some foreknowledge contained in the Bible but there is certainly no scientific explanation which would help at all in modern study.--[[User:JamieVa|JamieVa]] ([[User talk:JamieVa|talk]]) 11:37, 11 February 2016 (EST)
::::::Let's not reach for unwarranted conclusions. E=mc^2 was formulated in 1905 and experimentally verified around 1930; the gravitational wave announcement was only a few hours ago. These two phenomena are unrelated manifestations of relativity. Today's announcement does not confirm E=mc^2; it was confirmed long ago.
::::::As far as unification of the forces, today's announcement does not bring us any closer to a unification of mass, electromagnetism, or anything else. Unification of gravity with the other forces involves then ongoing research in "quantum gravity", that is, gravitons. As Professor Thorne made clear in today's announcement, the discovery of gravitational waves doesn't say anything about gravitons. Of the three articles cited above, the BBC article suggests that gravitational waves may help in future research into quantum gravity, but that is all.
::::::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 14:49, 11 February 2016 (EST)
:::::::Does wave/particle duality not apply to gravitational waves? This is a genuine question as I don't know but if it does it must mean gravitons are there.--[[User:JamieVa|JamieVa]] ([[User talk:JamieVa|talk]]) 15:03, 11 February 2016 (EST)
::::::::No. Wave/particle duality is a phenomenon of quantum mechanics, that is, the physics of the very small. Gravitational waves are a phenomenon of the physics of the very large. Gravitons relate to quantum mechanics, that is, the very small. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 15:08, 11 February 2016 (EST)

== Einstein’s Relativity and Relativism: Why Einstein’s theory of relativity is actually a powerful argument for absolute truth. ==

Please read the article [http://evangelicalfocus.com/blogs/1297/Einsteins_Relativity_and_Relativism Einstein’s Relativity and Relativism: Why Einstein’s theory of relativity is actually a powerful argument for absolute truth.] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:55, 11 February 2016 (EST)

:I don't see how this relates to the equation E=mc^2. Is this connection between Evangelical Christianity and Einsteinian Relativity something that you want people to see? If so, I would suggest finding an appropriate main space (or essay space) page for it. A talk page, especially a talk page for an equation, doesn't seem to be the right place to publicize a profound insight on absolute truth. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 15:12, 11 February 2016 (EST)
::SamHB, you are being inaccurate and mischaracterizing the article.

::For example, where does the article say there is a connection between evangelical Christianity and Einsteinian Relativity? It doesn't. You made that up.

::The article merely resides at an evangelical website and says in the latter paragraphs that there is a basis for absolute truth and it mentions at the end of the article what the Bible says about creation/truth/etc. But that is not what the bulk of the article is about and you know this. You are being dishonest. In addition, there are plenty of groups within Christendom besides evangelicals who believe in absolute truth and believe that the Bible is the Word of God.

::If you are going to respond to a talk page post, please do it more thoughtfully and with greater honesty. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 15:51, 11 February 2016 (EST)
== Re: the Einstein picture ==

I don't pretend to be an expert on relativity but I know of someone who works with atomic clocks who indicates he uses the theory. I believe relativity is a valid theory.

Also, Einstein is associated with relativity and the quote is a nice quote. I restored the picture and caption. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 14:56, 4 June 2016 (EDT)

==Kaluza-Klein Theory==
It says that no theory has ever unified gravity with electromagnetism. While not proven, Kaluza-Klein theory was developed decades ago and does exactly this. One other thing is that it says e=mc^2 cannot be derived from first principles. Could someone explain what is wrong with current derivations. Also this part doesn't seem to make any sense:

"The formula asserts that the mass of an object, at constant energy, magically varies precisely in inverse proportion to the square of a change in the speed of light over time"

I tried rewriting it, but it was reverted and my addition put in a footnote, so I'm guessing I misunderstood it.
[[User:PeterHockey|PeterHockey]] ([[User talk:PeterHockey|talk]]) 09:07, 2 September 2016 (EDT)

Talk:E=mc²

2016-09-02T13:29:01Z

PeterHockey:

*<big><big><big>[[Talk:E=mc²/Archive 1|Archive 1]]</big></big></big>
*<big><big><big>[[Talk:E=mc²/Archive 2|Archive 2]]</big></big></big>

== A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft and Walton ==

More than two years ago, I posed the following questions for Andy Schlafly to answer. I'd still appreciate an answer by him, making my wait worthwhile.

'''1.''' Do you accept that the mass of the Lithium-kernel (7Li), of alpha-particles (4He) and of protons (1H) can be measured fairly accurately, as these are charged particles?

'''2.''' Do you accept the measurements for the mass of the particles as used by Cockcroft¹ and Walton, i.e.
:::{|
!particle
!mass
|-
|1H||1.0072 amu
|-
|4He||4.0011 amu
|-
|7Li||7.0130 amu
|}
If not, which values do you think to be right?

'''3.''' Do you agree that before the reaction the mass of the particles involved was 8.0202 amu?

'''4.''' Do you agree that after the reaction the mass of the particles involved is 8.00220 amu?

'''5.''' Do you agree that there is a mass decrease of 0.0180 amu?

'''6.''' Before the experiment, the Li was at rest and the proton had a kinetic energy of less than 1MeV. Do you accept these values?

'''7.''' After the experiment, a pair of alpha-particles was observed, both having an kinetic energy of 8.6MeV. Do you think that this value is correct?

'''8.''' Can you tell me where the mass went? Can you tell me where the energy came from?

'''9.''' If your answer to question 8. is ''no'' in both accounts, than my answer is that there is a theory which explains the conversion of mass to energy, even if you don't like it!

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:33, 23 June 2014 (EDT)

The list of administrators of Conservapedia includes [[User:RSchlafly]] ("I'm related to Andrew Schlafly") and [[User:PhyllisS]] ("Phy Schlafly"). Both are knowledgeable about this stuff. Why don't you get their input on this article? And could you please answer the questions above? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:50, 23 July 2014 (EDT)

Another five months later, still nothing. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 07:42, 21 December 2014 (EST)

== Robert Dicke ==

I want to revisit the statement: ''For example, Robert Dicke, perhaps the greatest physicist of the 20th century, was denied a Nobel Prize because he doubted the Theory of Relativity.''

*"perhaps the greatest physicist of the 20th century" - according to whom?
*"was denied a Nobel Prize because he doubted the Theory of Relativity" - where is the evidence for this claim?

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:30, 20 February 2015 (EST)

:*Read also the article of [[Robert Dicke]]: "Indeed, Dicke should have won the Nobel Prize for one of his many other achievements also (such as his laser work), but was similarly denied recognition." --[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 06:56, 21 March 2015 (EDT)
::Thanks, I looked into it. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:22, 22 March 2015 (EDT)

== E=mc² is regularly tested, using the best equipment available ==

Take for instance the [[National Institute of Standards and Technology]]'s summer-school of 2009, which allows grad-students and junior faculty to get their hands on their newest equipment: Here, NIST-physicist Maynard Scott Dewey shows how this can be used to test the equation E=mc² directly ([http://www.ncnr.nist.gov/summerschool/ss09/pdf/Dewey_FP09_Part2b.pdf "''Neutron Binding Energy Measurements for a Direct Test of E=mc²''" (pdf)]) - and with a very good precision.

So, the formula is tested time and time again, it is regularly used by many physicists and engineers, regardless of the political position. That makes more than "liberal claptrap"... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:28, 18 March 2015 (EDT)

== Mass is a measure of an object's inertia, in other words its resistance to acceleration. In contrast, the intrinsic energy of an object [...][has] nothing to do with gravity. ==

This juxtaposition is very painful: Why should it by problematic that the "intrinsic energy" has nothing to do with gravity, when the first part talks about the object's inertia? Where is the "contrast"? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:34, 18 March 2015 (EDT)

== Taking out redundant sentence ==

I have taken the liberty of restoring (almost exactly) my version of 21:14, 8 June 2015. The previous version had what was essentially the same sentence twice, consecutively. It said:
:However, it is impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of this equation.

:Political pressure, however, has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of this nonsensical equation.
This can't possibly be what you wanted. The version I left in was the second one, with "Political pressure", and "nonsensical". I disagree with "nonsensical", but it's your website. I agree with the near-impossibility of anyone doubting this equation to successfully pursue an academic career in science, though probably for the reasons you think.

But I have taken out the word "since". It makes no sense in the current context; it may have made sense in an earlier context.

Now it's true that the longer intro paragraph was more "full", but that's only because it had the redundant sentence. I think the intro that I have left is full enough. It has "nonsensical", and it has the famous "claptrap" sentence. This must be the intro that you want. OK? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:47, 11 June 2015 (EDT)

:You did more than just that. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 23:47, 11 June 2015 (EDT)

==Change the article==
As it stands, the article itself is confusing. Items of info were placed in a haphazard manner, without regard to structure or flow. Try re-doing it this way, in the following order:
:Do a simple statement to introduce the subject in the first paragraph.
:Describe in detail what it is, and what it supposed to do.
:Describe the history of it, who first postulated it and why; who else seconded it.
:Describe anything that successfully uses it, confirms it, and so on.
:Describe anything the rejects it, criticisms of it, proof that it is wrong, and so on. It could be proof that it is wrong only in specific applications where it was tried and failed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:00, 15 June 2015 (EDT)

== People don't own formulas ==

No, they don't. But since the time of [[Pythagoras]], certain formulas, laws, and theorems are associated with certain people (not always correctly). While [[Einstein]] doesn't own [[E=mc²]], it is ''his'' formula. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 02:59, 6 August 2015 (EDT)

:What about Friedrich Hasenöhrl? Why doesn't he get any credit? It's not like he's lost in the mists of history. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 15:47, 6 August 2015 (EDT)

::Same reason that [[Tartaglia]] isn't credited for ''[[Cardano]]'s method'': history isn't just (and people like easy names). --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 16:08, 6 August 2015 (EDT)

== PBS's absurd statement ==

Would anyone like to defend the absurd statement by PBS that:
{{cquote|it's almost as if the ultimate energy an object will contain should be revealed when you look at its mass times c squared, or its mc².}}
--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 14:01, 8 August 2015 (EDT)

:I agree with you - I don't think that this way of trying to make the formula plausible works.
:BTW: while we are posing and answering questions - what about [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft and Walton]]? I'm still waiting for your answer! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:53, 8 August 2015 (EDT)

The PBS statement quoted above, with it's "ultimate energy" stuff and "will be revealed" stuff, is indeed rather stupid. That whole section needs to be cleaned up. But you need to be aware that this equation, like it or not, claptrap or not, correct or not, experimentally verified or not, theoretically proven or not, looms very large in the public's consciousness. (And I might add, the name of Einstein is widely associated with it, which is the point I made recently that you reverted.)

Most of what the public knows about it is ludicrously oversimplified and just wrong. The popular notion that I find most overwhelmingly stupid is the business about "it unlocks the secret of the atomic bomb". But the other quotes are nearly as bad.

The "Description for the layman" section and the immediately following "Popularization of E=mc²" are really just a synopsis of this foolishness. I think that material needs to be in the article, but put into perspective as oversimplified popularization. I don't agree with the edit comment "this is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Phrases like 'universally connected in the public's consciousness' are non-encyclopedic, and speculative at best." The public's consciousness of this equation is an important part of an article about it, unless you are writing a serious scientific journal to be read only by scientists. We need to acknowledge that it's a "meme", and try to put that into perspective.

The "Description for the layman" section gives four popular quotes, out of an article containing ten quotes. Of the ten quotes, only one is actually lucid, straightforward, and factually correct; ane that is the one (not one of the four) by Sheldon Glashow. The others are what one would expect if you ask scientists to explain it for laymen.

Assuming that it's OK with you for the page to acknowledge that it's well known in society at large, I'd like to leave the "Description for the layman" section in, with a prefatory note that it is extremely widely misunderstood, and that attempts to explain it to the general public almost invariably fall flat. Then give four examples as before, but adding Glashow and removing Arkani-Hamed. I'd also like to leave in the reference to the PBS article, but choose a much better quote than that "ultimate energy" nonsense. And the "energy it carried would be proportional to its mass times 100 [that is, v] squared" stuff is just plain wrong. And stupid. And unhelpful.

So can you give me a couple of days to think about this? Unless you want the whole "E=mc^2 in the public's consciousness" material to go away, in which case I won't bother.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 21:42, 8 August 2015 (EDT)

:In response to SamHB, I appreciate your thoughtful remarks, but I didn't put the PBS quotation in the entry. Someone else did (I'm not bothering to check who, and don't want to criticize anyone for it). Other quotations may be better, but it is important first to clearly state what the assumptions are underlying the formula. Does it work backwards by trying to conserve energy within the framework of the Theory of Relativity? If so, then the formula derivation really is circular, and the mass is not really a meaningful rest mass. Instead, the mass is something manipulated to try to conserve energy from different frames of reference.
::I really think it's better to have a synopsis of the "pop-sci" garbage, and a debunking thereof, '''first''', an exposition of what the formula means, its assumptions (they're really simple) '''second''', and how we know it is true '''third'''. I know this is, on the face of it, a distasteful order, but the "pop-sci" stuff has so overwhelmed the public's consciousness that we need to address that first. People will be attracted to the article because the equation is so famous, not because they really want to measure isotopic weights. Technical details at the beginning will turn them off, and they will never get to the debunking that's really important. So, if it's OK with you, I'm going to clean up the "pop-sci" stuff first, and leave it at the front. OK? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 14:12, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

:In response to AugustO, I don't doubt that some experiments may by chance have results consistent with E=mc2, just as a broken clock occasionally has the right time of day. The challenge is to demonstrate the formula across a diversity of experiments and circumstances, which of course has not been successfully done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:13, 8 August 2015 (EDT)

::This seems to work for the [[mass defect]] of all elements - astonishingly accurate for a broken clock! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 10:20, 11 February 2016 (EST)

==<strike>C is a constant, right?</strike>==
Ok, I'm getting dizzy reading through all the attacks on this page. I'll ignore all them for now, and just say that as I understand it, <strike>"c" stands for constant, not the speed of light.</strike> I'm no scientist, so I will not try continue offering suggestions. I'll leave it at this: I don't know if the idea behind it is true, and I don't even know what the formula means. However, I believe it refers the energy contained in matter, since certain matter/energy conversions are possible. Can we try to refine this a bit to state what it is/is not, then state why some might not agree? It's up to all you who have made this page, but it seems to be one thing that everyone uses against CP, and from my limited understanding of the topic, I think I just might see why. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 14:26, 9 February 2016 (EST) 
''EDIT: Okay, my mistake, "c" is the speed of light. Still, though, this is a theory of the energy contained in matter. You burn wood, you get energy. Perhpas this is an accurate represntaion, maybe not, but at least it's not as bad off as I thought.''--[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 14:38, 9 February 2016 (EST)

:Can you be more specific about "all the attacks on this page" and "one thing that everyone uses against CP"? I'm not denying those attacks, but are you referring to all the attacks, from the outside world, against CP's pages on relativity (which you can get quite a lot of by Googling "Conservapedia+relativity")? Or are you referring to all the attacks on relativity by pages here at CP (such as the "liberal claptrap" reference)? Or are you referring to the apparent opposition between the part of this article above the table of contents and the part below?

:AugustO and I wrote essentially all of the material below the table of contents. We put a huge amount of meticulous work into it. I believe it adequately explains things in terms that non-experts can mostly understand. We try to stay away from the kinds of imprecise statements about "energy contained in matter" that one finds elsewhere. Thinking in terms of "this is a theory of the energy contained in matter" is not a clear way of thinking about the equation. Do you find the presentation confusing? Or perhaps you find other articles confusing? Or you find contradictions among the various articles on the subject confusing? I want to make this article give a satisfactory explanation. Please let me know how I can improve it.

:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 16:45, 9 February 2016 (EST)

::I was general by design as to where the attacks are from. Mainly, I see the from outside, on various IQ voids known as liberal blogs like this one [https://cpmonitor.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/cp.jpg]. However, there are some rather opinionated and strong words exchanged in this talk area as well. I guess I don't have any other advice, if this is the way you want to go with it. If I think of anything, I'll let you know.--[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 18:37, 9 February 2016 (EST)

:::Got it. Yes, the criticism and arguing within CP is absolutely dwarfed by the criticism from outside. I referred to that in what I wrote in the Community Portal: [[Conservapedia:Community_Portal#Two_millionth_page_view_for_the_.22Counterexamples_to_Relativity.22_page]]. [[Counterexamples_to_Relativity|That page]] appears to be a lightning rod for criticism and scorn, and the "cpmonitor" web site is just one example. Very few of those two million views are from people who agree with it—my survey of Google references got 8000 hits, of which 98% were negative.

:::The strong words that you see on this and other pages represent an attempt to fix the problem. There is no simple solution.

:::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:16, 10 February 2016 (EST)

::::There is no unified theory of mass and electromagnetism. A century and many billions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted looking for one. Yet some people cling to the implausible equation that pretends otherwise. Such false beliefs crowd out the truth, and I doubt there are many people who continue to read the [[Bible]] after falling for the falsehood of E=mc2.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:41, 10 February 2016 (EST)
:::::Almost on cue gravity waves are discovered, a huge step in unifying gravity with the other forces.[http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/gravitational-waves-exist-heres-how-scientists-finally-found-them][http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35524440][https://www.theguardian.com/science/across-the-universe/live/2016/feb/11/gravitational-wave-announcement-latest-physics-einstein-ligo-black-holes-live] As for the implausible equation, can you explain how a bomb weighing 4 tons managed to release the equivalent of 15,000 tons of TNT? The Bible, fine book that it is is not going to help when it comes to modern science. I accept there is some some foreknowledge contained in the Bible but there is certainly no scientific explanation which would help at all in modern study.--[[User:JamieVa|JamieVa]] ([[User talk:JamieVa|talk]]) 11:37, 11 February 2016 (EST)
::::::Let's not reach for unwarranted conclusions. E=mc^2 was formulated in 1905 and experimentally verified around 1930; the gravitational wave announcement was only a few hours ago. These two phenomena are unrelated manifestations of relativity. Today's announcement does not confirm E=mc^2; it was confirmed long ago.
::::::As far as unification of the forces, today's announcement does not bring us any closer to a unification of mass, electromagnetism, or anything else. Unification of gravity with the other forces involves then ongoing research in "quantum gravity", that is, gravitons. As Professor Thorne made clear in today's announcement, the discovery of gravitational waves doesn't say anything about gravitons. Of the three articles cited above, the BBC article suggests that gravitational waves may help in future research into quantum gravity, but that is all.
::::::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 14:49, 11 February 2016 (EST)
:::::::Does wave/particle duality not apply to gravitational waves? This is a genuine question as I don't know but if it does it must mean gravitons are there.--[[User:JamieVa|JamieVa]] ([[User talk:JamieVa|talk]]) 15:03, 11 February 2016 (EST)
::::::::No. Wave/particle duality is a phenomenon of quantum mechanics, that is, the physics of the very small. Gravitational waves are a phenomenon of the physics of the very large. Gravitons relate to quantum mechanics, that is, the very small. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 15:08, 11 February 2016 (EST)

== Einstein’s Relativity and Relativism: Why Einstein’s theory of relativity is actually a powerful argument for absolute truth. ==

Please read the article [http://evangelicalfocus.com/blogs/1297/Einsteins_Relativity_and_Relativism Einstein’s Relativity and Relativism: Why Einstein’s theory of relativity is actually a powerful argument for absolute truth.] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:55, 11 February 2016 (EST)

:I don't see how this relates to the equation E=mc^2. Is this connection between Evangelical Christianity and Einsteinian Relativity something that you want people to see? If so, I would suggest finding an appropriate main space (or essay space) page for it. A talk page, especially a talk page for an equation, doesn't seem to be the right place to publicize a profound insight on absolute truth. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 15:12, 11 February 2016 (EST)
::SamHB, you are being inaccurate and mischaracterizing the article.

::For example, where does the article say there is a connection between evangelical Christianity and Einsteinian Relativity? It doesn't. You made that up.

::The article merely resides at an evangelical website and says in the latter paragraphs that there is a basis for absolute truth and it mentions at the end of the article what the Bible says about creation/truth/etc. But that is not what the bulk of the article is about and you know this. You are being dishonest. In addition, there are plenty of groups within Christendom besides evangelicals who believe in absolute truth and believe that the Bible is the Word of God.

::If you are going to respond to a talk page post, please do it more thoughtfully and with greater honesty. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 15:51, 11 February 2016 (EST)
== Re: the Einstein picture ==

I don't pretend to be an expert on relativity but I know of someone who works with atomic clocks who indicates he uses the theory. I believe relativity is a valid theory.

Also, Einstein is associated with relativity and the quote is a nice quote. I restored the picture and caption. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 14:56, 4 June 2016 (EDT)

==Kaluza-Klein Theory==
It says that no theory has ever unified gravity with electromagnetism. While not proven, Kaluza-Klein theory was developed decades ago and does exactly this. One other thing is that it says e=mc^2 cannot be derived from first principles. Could someone explain what is wrong with current derivations. Also this part doesn't seem to make any sense. I tried rewriting it, but it was reverted and my addition put in a footnote, so I'm guessing I misunderstood it.
[[User:PeterHockey|PeterHockey]] ([[User talk:PeterHockey|talk]]) 09:07, 2 September 2016 (EDT)

E=mc²

2016-09-02T13:26:12Z

PeterHockey: Added a bit

'''E=mc²''' asserts that the energy ('''E''') which makes up the [[matter]] in an unmoving object is equal to the square of the [[speed of light]] ('''c²''') times the [[mass]] ('''m''') of that body.<ref>"Energy and mass are linked in the most famous relationship in physics: E = mc². (The energy content of a body is equal to the mass of the body times the speed of light squared.)" [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/einstein-genius-among-geniuses.html Einstein: Genius Among Geniuses] - PBS's NOVA</ref> The complete form, when applied to moving objects, is '''E²=(mc²)²+(pc)²''', where '''p''' represents momentum,<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnMIhxWRGNw</ref> It is a statement that purports to relate all [[matter]] to [[energy]]. In fact, no [[theory]] has successfully unified the [[law]]s governing [[mass]] (''i.e.'', [[gravity]]) with the laws governing light (''i.e.'', [[electromagnetism]]), and numerous attempts to derive '''E=mc²''' from first principles have failed.<ref name="wvarticles">Five lectures at Wikiversity. The 4th one derives the formula, using the assumptions in the "What the Equation Means" section.
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/space,_time,_and_the_Lorentz_transform Lecture 1]
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/momentum Lecture 2]
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/energy Lecture 3]
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/E_%3D_mc%C2%B2 Lecture 4]
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/spacetime_diagrams_and_vectors Lecture 5]</ref> [[Politics|Political]] pressure, however, has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in [[science]] to even question the validity of this nonsensical [[equation]]. '''''Simply put, E=mc² is [[liberal claptrap]]'''''.

The formula asserts that the mass of an object, at constant energy, magically varies precisely in inverse proportion to the square of a change in the speed of light over time,<ref>http://www.livescience.com/29111-speed-of-light-not-constant.html</ref> which violates [[conservation of mass]] and disagrees with commonsense.<ref>The formula asserts that the mass of an object has energy associated with it, even when it is not moving (p=0). The formula asserts a relationship between the rest mass of an object, its energy and the speed of light. According to the formula, the apparent mass of an object depends on its energy and so [[conservation of mass]] is not satisfied. Instead, relativity proposes that the total energy of a [[closed system]] is conserved, when we "convert" the masses into energies using this formula.</ref>

Physicists have never been able to unify light with matter<ref>Quantum Electrodynamics describes how matter interacts with matter, the standard model of particle physics describes how matter (fermions) interact with bosons (force carriers) for the electromagnetic, strong and weak forces. To date, no theory has been proven to unify gravity with electromagnetism.</ref>despite more than a billion-dollars-worth of attempts, and it is likely impossible to ever do so.<ref>Much of 20th century physics has centered around the interactions between photons (light) and fermionic matter, and much more than a billion dollars has been spent on this. But that doesn't imply that they have been "unified".</ref> [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]] predicts that there is no unified theory of light and matter because they were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the [[Book of Genesis]].

[[Mass]] is a measure of an object's inertia, in other words its resistance to acceleration. In contrast, the intrinsic [[energy]] of an object (such as an [[atom]]) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity. Declaring the object's energy to be a function of inertia rather than electrostatics is an absurd and impossible attempt to unify the forces of nature, contrary to the accepted view (as predicted by [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]]) that the forces of nature have not been unified. Liberal scientists assert the formula E=mc² is not limited to nuclear reactions; it applies to chemical reactions and even to the energy stored in a compressed spring.<ref>http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99140.htm</ref>

The claim that '''E=mc²''' has never yielded anything of value and it has often been used as a redefinition of "[[energy]]" for pseudo-scientific purposes by non-scientific journals. Claims can be found not only on liberal, second-tier college websites but at those of [[Baylor]] and the [[MIT]] that the equation is used in [[nuclear power]] generation and [[nuclear weapon]]s ([[nuclear fusion]] and [[nuclear fission]]) and about [[antimatter]].<ref>[http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/E=mcsquared/index.html John D. Norton ''Einstein for everyone - E=mc²''], Department of History and Philosophy of Science University of Pittsburgh</ref><ref>[http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/releng.html Rod Nave ''HpyerPhysics - Relativistic Energy''], Georgia State University</ref><ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html Peter Tyson ''The Legacy of E=mc²''] October 11, 2005. PBS ''NOVA''.</ref>

The [[Theory of Relativity]] has never been able to mathematically derive '''E=mc²''' from first principles,<ref name="wvarticles"/> and a physicist observed in a peer-reviewed paper published in 2011 that "Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."<ref>[http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AmJPh..79..591H Eugene Hecht: ''How Einstein confirmed E0=mc²'', American Journal of Physics, Volume 79, Issue 6, pp. 591-600 (2011)]</ref> Nevertheless, Robert Dicke - one of the most accomplished American-born physicists and experimental physicists in history - found it unlikely that the equivalence was wrong.<ref>R. H. Dicke "The Theoretical Significance of Experimental Relativity", Gordon and Breach, 1964</ref>

It has been known for a long time that radiation has a mass equivalence, which was correctly derived by [[Henri Poincaré]] in 1904,<ref>[http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josa/abstract.cfm?uri=josa-42-8-540 Herbert E. Ives ''Derivation of the Mass-Energy Relation'', JOSA, Vol. 42, Issue 8, pp. 540-543 (1952)]</ref> but the equation '''E=mc²''' makes a claim far beyond that limited circumstance:

{{cquote|The equality of the mass equivalent of radiation to the mass lost by a radiating body is derivable from Poincaré’s momentum of radiation (1900) and his principle of relativity (1904).|||[[Herbert Ives]], 1952}}


== Description for the layman ==

The equation is extremely famous, and just as extremely misunderstood, in popular culture. Among the more outlandish claims are statements to the effect that "E=mc² holds the secret of the atomic bomb."<ref>Not so. The energy of the atomic bomb comes not from E=mc², but from the tension between the electrostatic force and the strong nuclear force. E=mc² simply meant that the fission products from the [[Little Boy|Hiroshima]] bomb weighed 0.7 grams less than the original Uranium.</ref>
[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|
*"I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional [[Atheism|atheist]] whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." - [[Albert Einstein]]<ref name="Isaacson390">Isaacson, Walter (2008). [http://books.google.com/books?id=cdxWNE7NY6QC&pg=PT390 ''Einstein: His Life and Universe''] (New York: Simon and Schuster), p. 390. Retrieved from GoogleBooks archive on February 19, 2015.</ref>]]
The equation has acquired something of a "cult" status. In the USA, the popular ''[[Twilight Zone]]'' series featured '''E=mc²''' prominently, giving the equation greater currency with the public. The song ''[[Albert Einstein|Einstein]] A Go-Go'' by the band Landscape had a similar effect in the UK in the 1980s. The equation was the title of a single by ''Big Audio Dynamite'' in 1985, and an album by Mariah Carey in 2008. Some movies have been themed on this equation.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0322120/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_2, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116160/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_1</ref> The equation, along with a picture of a mushroom cloud and a picture of [[Albert Einstein]], were featured on the front cover of an issue of ''Time'' magazine in 1946. All of this is disappointing when one considers how few people actually understand what the equation is saying.

A number of science writers—both serious scientists and science popularizers—have at various times written their own explanation of the equation. Some of these are helpful; many are not. One of the better ones, though not without its share of nonsense, is a NOVA series by the [[Public Broadcasting Service]]<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/ancestors-einstein.html David Bodanis ''Ancestors of E=mc²''], Nov 10, 2005, NOVA</ref>

In 2005 The PBS NOVA series also asked 10 physicists to describe the equation in layman's terms.<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html Lexi Krock, David Levin (editors) ''E=mc² explained'', June, 2005. PBS ''NOVA'']</ref> Here is a sample of five of the statements:
{{cquote|''It's something that doesn't happen in your kitchen or in everyday life.''|||[[Neil deGrasse Tyson]], Astrophysicist, American Museum of Natural History}}{{cquote|''When an object emits light, say, a flashlight, it gets lighter.''|||Sheldon Glashow, Theoretical Physicist and Nobel Laureate, Boston University}}{{cquote|''Things that seem incredibly different can really be manifestations of the same underlying phenomena.''|||Nima Arkani-Hamed, Theoretical Physicist, Harvard University}}{{cquote|''You can get access to parts of nature you have never been able to get access to before.''|||Lene Hau, Experimental Physicist, Harvard University}}{{
cquote|''It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.''|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}}

Of these, only the Sheldon Glashow quote makes a specific and meaningful statement about what the equation means.

== What the Equation Means ==
The equation is about energy, both kinetic energy and potential energy.

Kinetic energy is actual visible energy, that is, energy of things that are in motion. It's the energy of a thrown baseball. Radiation (for example, light) also counts as kinetic energy—it's the motion of photons. Light carries energy, force, and momentum. The force carried by light is not as obvious as the force of a thrown baseball, but it is there. The force of sunlight has been proposed for long-term space travel. It is also the force that causes the [[Pioneer anomaly]] and the force that makes a comet's tail stream away from the Sun.

Potential energy is the other kind—"hidden" energy. It can become kinetic energy, or vice-versa. A wound up spring, a charged battery, a stretched rubber band, a mixture of gasoline and air, an explosive, and a radioactive atom, all have potential energy. It's what is needed to make the principle of conservation of energy work. That is, when kinetic energy comes into existence, it's because potential energy was converted into kinetic energy. The wound-up spring of a clock has potential energy, that runs down over time, being converted into the kinetic energy of the ticking sound. A battery has potential energy that runs down when it provides electricity to make things move. Various chemical substances have characteristic amounts of potential energy, that may be converted to or from kinetic energy when chemical reactions occur. For example, Sodium and Chlorine have more potential energy than Sodium Chloride. Explosives have more potential energy than their constituent atoms. Radioactive atoms have more potential energy than their "daughter" atoms.

The principle of ''conservation of energy'', universally accepted for well over 100 years, says

::Total energy (kinetic + potential) is always conserved.

Hundreds of years of research by chemists (and, before that, the alchemists) worked out the potential energies that are characteristic of various substances, and that the potential and kinetic energies are accurately converted from one to the other, leading to the principle of conservation of total energy.

An interesting fact is that, normally, one considers only ''changes'' in potential energy; one doesn't need an absolute scale. A rock at the top of a hill has more potential energy than after it rolls to the bottom of the hill, but the energy at the bottom isn't necessarily zero. We could dig a hole and let it roll down farther, with its energy going negative. Only changes matter. Now it turns out that, once one accepts the implications of E=mc², one ''could'' assign an absolute potential energy to something—its mass times c², and changes in potential emergy would work out correctly because of the mass changes. But that isn't necessary, and, in any case, it would require accepting E=mc² and would therefore be getting ahead of the story.

With those preliminaries out of the way, it is possible to give a concise explanation of what the equation means:

::'''Potential energy has mass.'''

That is, it weighs something. Whenever anything has potential energy of any kind in it, improbable as this may sound, it weighs more. The proportionality constant is 1/c2, or 1.11 x 10−17 kilograms per joule. A fresh battery weighs more than a spent one, a wound-up alarm clock weighs more than a run-down one, etc.

Now that's way too small to measure for anything other than nuclear reactions, which is why it escaped everyone's notice for so long. But it has been measured and experimentally verified for nuclear transformations all across the periodic table.

:There's an interesting parallel with heat. Before the rise of thermodynamics, it was believed that heat was a "substance". That substance was called "caloric". When heat travels from one body to another, what was really happening was presumed to be a transfer of caloric. Much effort was put into measuring the mass of this mysterious "substance". It was always found to be zero, and we now know that what is actually being transferred is thermal energy. So it is not unheard-of to assign mass to intangible properties.

The nonzero mass of potential energy, and the equation E=mc², were determined on theoretical grounds, before any experimental observations were made. The logic of this follows from these assumptions:

#Galilean and Newtonian mechanics.
#Galilean relativity, that is, the notion that there is no absolute frame of reference.
#Conservation of energy.
#Conservation of momentum. (So far this is just classical physics.)
#The universality of the speed of light. (That is, special relativity.)

Keep in mind that, under special relativity, it's not just space and time that need to be redefined. The definitions of momentum and energy need to change also. This is necessary so that the '''conservation of energy and of momentum will be absolutely precise in all circumstances.'''

Under classical Newtonian mechanics, the momentum and kinetic energy of a moving mass are
:<math>p = mv\,</math>
and
:<math>E = \frac{1}{2}mv^2\,</math>
respectively. But under special relativity they are
:<math>p = \frac{mv}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}\,</math>
and
:<math>E = mc^2\left(\frac{1}{1 - v^2/c^2} - 1\right)\,</math>
One can verify that, in the non-relativistic limit, the relativistic values converge to the classical ones.

It is this requirement, and some "gedanken experiments" involving conversion between potential and kinetic energy, that lead to E=mc².<ref name="wvarticles"/> These experiments involve some kind of object that isn't moving (though there might be internal motion that doesn't figure in the experiment) and therefore has no kinetic energy and only potential energy, turning into some things that have kinetic energy. The requirements of strict conservation of total momentum and total energy prove the equation.

Einstein's famous derivation<ref name="einstein1905b">[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/ "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend its Energy Content?" Albert Einstein, Sept 1905]</ref> involved light instead of tangible objects, but the result is the same.

==History of Experimental Verification==
Because the change in mass arising from a given release of energy is so small (<math>1/c^2</math>, which 1.11 x 10−17 kilograms per joule), it is essentially impossible to check this equation for normal processes. For example, a flashlight battery loses about 1 picogram of mass when it discharges, and the resultant atoms from the detonation of 1 kilogram of TNT weigh 47 nanograms less than the TNT. Even if all the particles of smoke and gas could be collected reliably, the difference couldn't be detected.

Measuring the effect requires process that release vastly more energy than ordinary chemical processes. The discovery of Radium and Polonium around 1898 gave a tantalizing hint that there were processes that released far more energy than chemical processes could account for. These elements continuously released measurable heat, and also glowed in the dark.

Einstein touched on this possibility in his original 1905 paper.<ref name=einstein1905b/>
{{cquote|''It is not impossible that with bodies whose energy content is variable to a high degree (e.g. with radium salts) the theory may be successfully put to the test.''}}It would take more than a decade to develop an understanding of the nuclear process involved. The first thing that was required was accurate knowledge of atomic weights.

Atomic weights of the various elements were first measured, with accuracy of a few decimal places, by J. J. Berzelius in the late 1820s. This required extremely painstaking (for the time) measurements. The figures were refined to even more accuracy by J. A. R. Newlands in the 1860s. The values were accurate enough to clearly show the rather interesting property that the atomic weights were nearly integers, but not exactly so. The reason for this would turn out to be partly because of different isotopes (discovered by Frederick Soddy in 1913) and partly because of E=mc2.

In 1907 Rutherford determined that the "alpha" radiation from Radium was Helium. In 1911 he formulated the theory of the nucleus. In 1919 he demonstrated that nuclear transmutations could take place, such as

::<math>{}_7^{14}\mathrm{N}\, +\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}\,\rightarrow\, {}_8^{17}\mathrm{O}\, +\, {}_1^1\mathrm{H}</math>

The discovery of Radon, and much further investigation, revealed that the behavior of Radium was

::<math>{}_{88}^{226}\mathrm{Ra}\,\rightarrow\, {}_{86}^{222}\mathrm{Rn}\, +\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}</math>
and
::<math>{}_{86}^{222}\mathrm{Rn}\,\rightarrow\, {}_{84}^{218}\mathrm{Po}\, +\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}</math>

Accurate ways of measuring speed of a charged particle, by deflecting it in a magnetic field, had been developed by then, so that, by very painstaking observation and measurement, it was determined that the first alpha particle (Helium nucleus) had an energy of 4.78 MeV and the second an energy of 5.49 Mev. This confirmed E=mc2 up to the accuracy of the measurements. The equation, along with knowledge of isotope mixes, now explained why the atomic weights appearing in the periodic table were nearly integers, but not exactly so.

Around 1925, the development of the mass spectrograph, by Francis Aston, made it possible to measure atomic weights to extreme precision.

The 1932 Cockcroft-Walton experiment, described in more detail below, started to make the equation famous by confirming it, with reasonable accuracy, for an artificially induced nuclear reaction. (Confirming E=mc2 was not a goal of the experiment; it was an incidental consequence. The equation had already been known and understood for many years.)

In the decades since, nuclear transmutations have been performed, in particle accelerators, all over the periodic table, observing in detail the properties of various isotopes. These have confirmed E=mc2 with great precision. Perhaps the most precise test, by Rainville ''et. al.'',<ref name="rainville">[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7071/full/4381096a.html Nature 438, 1096-1097 (22 December 2005)] doi:10.1038/4381096a; Published online 21 December 2005</ref> confirmed the equation to an accuracy of a few parts per million.

==Alleged Experimental verification--the Cockcroft-Walton experiment==
In 1932 English physicist John Cockcroft and Irish physicist Ernest Walton performed the first artificial nuclear transmutation of nuclei, for which they were awarded the 1951 [[Nobel Prize]] in physics -- '''''but not for any verification of E=mc²'''''.<ref>[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/cockcroft-lecture.pdf John D. Cockroft ''Experiments on the interaction of high-speed nucleons with atomic nuclei''], Nobel Lecture, Dec 11, 1951</ref> The award was for ''"their pioneer work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei by artificially accelerated atomic particles."''<ref>[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/# Nobel Prize Organization]</ref>

Verifying E=mc² was not the goal of the experiment, and the Nobel prize was awarded for the transmutation itself, not any verification of the equation. But analysis of the experiment does in fact verify the equation for the transmutation involved.

They bombarded [[Lithium]] atoms with [[protons]] having a [[kinetic energy]] less than 1 [[Electron-Volts|MeV]]. The result were two (slightly less heavy) [[alpha particle]]s, for which the [[kinetic energy]] was measured as 17.3 MeV

:::::<math>{}_3^7\mathrm{Li}\, +\, {}_1^1\mathrm{H}\,\rightarrow\,2\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}</math>

The mass of the particles on the left hand side is 8.0263 [[atomic mass units|amu]], the mass on the right hand side ''only'' 8.0077 amu.<ref>Gerard Piel ''The age of science: what scientists learned in the 20th century'', Basic Books, 2001, p. 144-145</ref> The difference between this masses is .00186 amu, which results in the following back-of-an-envelope calculation:

::::<math>0.00186\,\mathrm{amu} \cdot c^2 = 0.0186 \cdot 1.66 \cdot 10^{-27}\,\mathrm{kg}\cdot\left(3\cdot10^8\,\mathrm{\frac{m}{s}}\right)^2</math>
::::<math>\approx\,2.79\cdot 10^{-12} \,\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{\frac{m^2}{s^2}}</math>
::::<math>\approx \,17.3\,\mathrm{MeV}</math>

Accurate measurements and detailed calculations allowed for verifying the theoretical values with an accuracy of ±0.5%. This was the first time a nucleus was artificially split, and thereby the first transmutation of elements using accelerated particles:

Perhaps best empirical verification of '''E=mc2''' was done in 2005 by Simon Rainville et al., as published in ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' (which is not a leading physics journal).<ref name="rainville"/> The article states that "Einstein's relationship is separately confirmed in two tests, which yield a combined result of 1−Δmc²/E=(−1.4±4.4)×10−7, indicating that it holds to a level of at least 0.00004%. To our knowledge, this is the most precise direct test of the famous equation yet described."

==A Famous Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium==

For most types of physical interactions, the masses of the initial reactants and of the final products match so closely that it is essentially impossible to measure any difference. But for nuclear reactions, the difference is measurable. That difference is related to the energy absorbed or released, described by the equation E=mc². (The equation applies to '''all''' interactions; the fact that nuclear interactions are the only ones for which the mass difference is measurable has led people to believe, wrongly, that E=mc² applies only to nuclear interactions.)

The [[Theory of Relativity]] played no role in this work, but proponents later tried to retrofit the theory to the data in order to explain the explain the observed mass changes.<ref>Actually, the formula E=mc2 was published in 1905, and has not changed since then. Fission of Uranium was discovered in 1938. It is not possible that the equation was retrofitted to explain this discovery.</ref> Here is the most famous example of the mass change.

Nuclear fission, which is the basis for nuclear energy, was discovered in experiments by [[Otto Hahn]] and [[Fritz Strassman]], and analyzed by [[Lise Meitner]], in 1938.

There are a great number of decay paths of [[Uranium]] fission that figured in this experiment. The result element that most caught their attention was [[Barium]], because it was chemically related to the Radium that they were expecting. One of the fission paths may have been this:

:235U → 140Xe + 91Sr + 4n

(The [[Xenon]] decayed within about a minute to 140Ba. They were searching for the chemical signature of Barium.)

The masses of the particles are:

{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0"
! Substance
! 235U
! 140Xe
! 91Sr
! 4 neutrons
|-
| Number of protons
| 92
| 54
| 38
| 0
|-
| Number of neutrons
| 235
| 140
| 91
| 4
|-
| Number of electrons
| 92
| 54
| 38
| 0
|-
| Mass
| 235.04393
| 139.92164
| 90.910203
| 4.03466
|}

The mass of the Uranium atom is 235.04393, and the sum of the masses of the products is 234.866503. The difference is .177427 amu, or, using the E=mc² equation, 165 million electron volts. (The generally accepted value for the total energy released by Uranium fission, including secondary decays, is about 200 million electron volts.)

The insight that the conversion from Uranium to Barium was caused by complete fission of the atom was made by Lise Meitner in December, 1938. She had the approximate "mass defect" quantities memorized, and so she worked out in her head, using the E=mc² equation, that there would be this enormous release of energy. This release was observed shortly thereafter, and the result is nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

==A Topical Example: Speed of Extremely Energetic Neutrinos==
Here is another example of the use of this formula in physics calculations. In 2011 there were [http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/22/faster-than-light-particles-neutrinos?newsfeed=true reports] that high-energy neutrinos had been observed traveling at a speed faster than the speed of light in an experiment at the Gran Sasso laboratory in Italy. Specifically, they seemed to have arrived at the detector 60 nanoseconds faster than light would have. Relativity doesn't allow that, and, since neutrinos have nonzero (but incredibly tiny) mass, they aren't even supposed to travel ''at'' the speed of light.

The mass of a neutrino is about 0.44x10−36kilograms. (Normally all of these things are measured in more convenient units such as Giga-electron-Volts, but that makes implicit use of E=mc2. If we don't accept that, we have to do the calculations under classical physics, using SI (meter/kilogram/second) units.) The neutrinos were accelerated to an energy of about 17GeV, or .27x10−8Joules. If one did not accept relativity and had to use classical physics and the classical formula <math>\mathrm{E} = \frac{1}{2}mv^2</math>, one would get v=110x1012 meters per second. This is about 370,000 times the speed of light, something that scientists would certainly have noticed. In fact, with special relativity, the speed is just under the speed of light, such that the neutrinos should be received at the detector about .26x10−24 seconds (.26 yoctoseconds) later than the speed of light itself. This is far too small to measure—15 orders of magnitude smaller than the resolution of the GPS signals in the experiment.

Later [http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/02/official-word-superluminal-neutrinos-leaves-warp-drive-fans-shred-hope%E2%80%94barely?ref=hp reports] started to resolve the mystery, and it is now accepted that the neutrinos behaved properly. But a BBC reporter made the incorrect statement that [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17364682 the neutrinos travelled at precisely light speed]. This was a simple misstatement, by .26 yoctoseconds.

The issue was discussed at length at Conservapedia.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/102#Faster_than_light_neutrinos</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/102#The_final_nail_in_the_coffin_of_relativity.3F</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/102#Another_Blow_to_Relativity</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/109#Neutrinos_now_obey_speed_limit</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/111#Neutrinos</ref>

==Deducing the Equation From Empirical Observation==

While the equation was historically developed on theoretical grounds as an inevitable consequence of special relativity, it is possible to deduce it purely from empirical observation.

So, for the purposes of this section, imagine that one is in the era of "classical physics"; prior to 1900 or so. Relativity has not been invented, but, inexplicably, nuclear physics has. Imagine that the phenomena of radioactivity and nuclear fission have been observed, without any knowledge of relativity.

A well-accepted physical law of classical physics was the law of conservation of mass. This was not easy to deduce. It required careful analysis of such phenomena as combustion, in the 1700s, to eliminate the various confounding sub-phenomena that made the law difficult to see. But, by 1900, the law was well established:

:::*'''In all interactions, mass is precisely conserved.'''

For example, the mass of a TNT molecule is 227.1311 Daltons, or 227.1311 g/mol, which is, for all practical purposes, the same as the mass of its constituent Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and Oxygen atoms. It is essentially impossible to measure the difference. The principle of conservation of mass is upheld.

But when nuclear phenomena are discovered, we notice something different. The masses of the result particles after an event (e.g. alpha decay, nuclear fission, or artificial transmutation) is measurably less than the masses of the original particle(s). With the invention of the mass spectrometer around 1920, it became possible to measure atomic weights of various isotopes with great precision.

Radium-226 decays into Radon-222 by emission of an alpha particle with an energy of 4.78 MeV.

1 kg of Radium-226 = <math>\frac{6.022 \times 10^{23}}{226.0254}</math> atoms. (The numerator is [[Avogadro's number]], and the denominator is the atomic weight of Radium-226.) This is 2.6643647 * 1024 atoms.

That number of Radon-222 atoms has mass .98226836 kg. That number of alpha particles has mass .01770863 kg.
The mass lost is .00002301 kg.

Each emitted alpha particle has energy of 4.78 MeV, or 4.78 * .1602 * 10−18 Joules. The total alpha energy from the decay of 1 kg of radium is 2.04 * 1012 Joules.

Also, Radon-222 decays into Polonium-218 by emission of an alpha particle with an energy of 5.49 MeV.

1 kg of Radon-222 = <math>\frac{6.022 \times 10^{23}}{222.0176}</math> atoms. This is 2.7124611 * 1024 atoms.

That number of Polonium-218 atoms has mass .98194467 kg. That number of alpha particles has mass .01802830 kg.

The mass lost is .00002703 kg.

Each emitted alpha particle has energy of 5.49 MeV. The total alpha energy from the decay of 1 kg of polonium is 2.39 * 1012 Joules.

It looks as thought we have to rewrite the law of conservation of mass:

:::*'''In all "ordinary" interactions, mass is precisely conserved.'''
:::*'''In nuclear interactions, there is a small but measurable loss of mass.'''

:By the way, we can clearly see that atomic weights of pure isotopes are not integers, and that it has something to do with the energy released by nuclear disintegration. In retrospect, the formula E=mc² explains the non-integer character of atomic weights.

Making special cases like this is unsatisfactory, of course.

We do this for a few other interactions, including the explosion of TNT. This would include the Lithium-plus-Hydrogen and Uranium fission phenomena described above. We won't bother with the details. As observational scientists, we look for patterns in the behavior of nature. We make a table:

{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0"
! interaction
! energy released per kg, Joules
! mass lost per kg of original substance, kg
|-
| explosion of TNT
| 4.184 * 106
| seems to be zero
|-
| alpha decay of Ra-226
| 2.04 * 1012
| .00002301 kg
|-
| alpha decay of Rn-222
| 2.39 * 1012
| .00002703 kg
|}

We plot these, and a few others, not shown, on graph paper, and find to our amazement that the relationship is linear.

For Ra, m/E = .112794118 E-16
For Po, m/E = .113096234 E-16

If this is linear, the mass defect for TNT would have been .47 * 10−10. We couldn't possibly have measured this.

So we can rewrite the rule for conservation of mass in a more satisfactory way:

:::*'''In all interactions, there is a loss of mass, equal to about .113 * 10-16 kg per Joule of energy released.'''

What we thought was exact conservation is just very nearly exact, and we hadn't been able to measure it before.

But maybe there's more. This constant has dimensions of kilograms per Joule. From high-school physics, we know that that is seconds squared divided by meters squared. That is, it is the reciprocal of the square of a velocity. We calculate that velocity. It is about 2.97 * 108 meters per second. Very close to the speed of light! Very interesting! (The calculations above were not extremely precise. The formula has been verified with great precision, but not here.)

We don't understand why (that will have to wait for the invention of relativity), but we can formulate a hypothesis:

:::*'''In all interactions, there is a loss of mass, equal to <math>\frac{1}{c^2}</math> times the amount of energy released.'''

We don't have to give the units any more, since everything is now dimensionally correct.

::There is a very interesting analogy with the discovery of [[Maxwell's Equations]]. Maxwell found an interesting relationship involving the fundamental constants <math>\epsilon\,</math> and <math>\mu\,</math> appearing in his equations. Specifically, <math>\epsilon\mu\,</math> has the dimensions of seconds squared divided by meters squared, and that:

:::::<math>\frac{1}{\epsilon\mu} = c^2</math>

::where "c" was the known velocity of light. He also showed that his equations predict electromagnetic waves, propagating at that speed.

==See also==
*[[Attempts to prove E=mc²]]
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]
*[[Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]

== References ==
<references />
[[Category:Relativity]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Bible]]

Talk:E=mc²

2016-09-02T13:08:11Z

PeterHockey: New point

*<big><big><big>[[Talk:E=mc²/Archive 1|Archive 1]]</big></big></big>
*<big><big><big>[[Talk:E=mc²/Archive 2|Archive 2]]</big></big></big>

== A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft and Walton ==

More than two years ago, I posed the following questions for Andy Schlafly to answer. I'd still appreciate an answer by him, making my wait worthwhile.

'''1.''' Do you accept that the mass of the Lithium-kernel (7Li), of alpha-particles (4He) and of protons (1H) can be measured fairly accurately, as these are charged particles?

'''2.''' Do you accept the measurements for the mass of the particles as used by Cockcroft¹ and Walton, i.e.
:::{|
!particle
!mass
|-
|1H||1.0072 amu
|-
|4He||4.0011 amu
|-
|7Li||7.0130 amu
|}
If not, which values do you think to be right?

'''3.''' Do you agree that before the reaction the mass of the particles involved was 8.0202 amu?

'''4.''' Do you agree that after the reaction the mass of the particles involved is 8.00220 amu?

'''5.''' Do you agree that there is a mass decrease of 0.0180 amu?

'''6.''' Before the experiment, the Li was at rest and the proton had a kinetic energy of less than 1MeV. Do you accept these values?

'''7.''' After the experiment, a pair of alpha-particles was observed, both having an kinetic energy of 8.6MeV. Do you think that this value is correct?

'''8.''' Can you tell me where the mass went? Can you tell me where the energy came from?

'''9.''' If your answer to question 8. is ''no'' in both accounts, than my answer is that there is a theory which explains the conversion of mass to energy, even if you don't like it!

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:33, 23 June 2014 (EDT)

The list of administrators of Conservapedia includes [[User:RSchlafly]] ("I'm related to Andrew Schlafly") and [[User:PhyllisS]] ("Phy Schlafly"). Both are knowledgeable about this stuff. Why don't you get their input on this article? And could you please answer the questions above? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:50, 23 July 2014 (EDT)

Another five months later, still nothing. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 07:42, 21 December 2014 (EST)

== Robert Dicke ==

I want to revisit the statement: ''For example, Robert Dicke, perhaps the greatest physicist of the 20th century, was denied a Nobel Prize because he doubted the Theory of Relativity.''

*"perhaps the greatest physicist of the 20th century" - according to whom?
*"was denied a Nobel Prize because he doubted the Theory of Relativity" - where is the evidence for this claim?

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:30, 20 February 2015 (EST)

:*Read also the article of [[Robert Dicke]]: "Indeed, Dicke should have won the Nobel Prize for one of his many other achievements also (such as his laser work), but was similarly denied recognition." --[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 06:56, 21 March 2015 (EDT)
::Thanks, I looked into it. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:22, 22 March 2015 (EDT)

== E=mc² is regularly tested, using the best equipment available ==

Take for instance the [[National Institute of Standards and Technology]]'s summer-school of 2009, which allows grad-students and junior faculty to get their hands on their newest equipment: Here, NIST-physicist Maynard Scott Dewey shows how this can be used to test the equation E=mc² directly ([http://www.ncnr.nist.gov/summerschool/ss09/pdf/Dewey_FP09_Part2b.pdf "''Neutron Binding Energy Measurements for a Direct Test of E=mc²''" (pdf)]) - and with a very good precision.

So, the formula is tested time and time again, it is regularly used by many physicists and engineers, regardless of the political position. That makes more than "liberal claptrap"... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:28, 18 March 2015 (EDT)

== Mass is a measure of an object's inertia, in other words its resistance to acceleration. In contrast, the intrinsic energy of an object [...][has] nothing to do with gravity. ==

This juxtaposition is very painful: Why should it by problematic that the "intrinsic energy" has nothing to do with gravity, when the first part talks about the object's inertia? Where is the "contrast"? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:34, 18 March 2015 (EDT)

== Taking out redundant sentence ==

I have taken the liberty of restoring (almost exactly) my version of 21:14, 8 June 2015. The previous version had what was essentially the same sentence twice, consecutively. It said:
:However, it is impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of this equation.

:Political pressure, however, has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of this nonsensical equation.
This can't possibly be what you wanted. The version I left in was the second one, with "Political pressure", and "nonsensical". I disagree with "nonsensical", but it's your website. I agree with the near-impossibility of anyone doubting this equation to successfully pursue an academic career in science, though probably for the reasons you think.

But I have taken out the word "since". It makes no sense in the current context; it may have made sense in an earlier context.

Now it's true that the longer intro paragraph was more "full", but that's only because it had the redundant sentence. I think the intro that I have left is full enough. It has "nonsensical", and it has the famous "claptrap" sentence. This must be the intro that you want. OK? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:47, 11 June 2015 (EDT)

:You did more than just that. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 23:47, 11 June 2015 (EDT)

==Change the article==
As it stands, the article itself is confusing. Items of info were placed in a haphazard manner, without regard to structure or flow. Try re-doing it this way, in the following order:
:Do a simple statement to introduce the subject in the first paragraph.
:Describe in detail what it is, and what it supposed to do.
:Describe the history of it, who first postulated it and why; who else seconded it.
:Describe anything that successfully uses it, confirms it, and so on.
:Describe anything the rejects it, criticisms of it, proof that it is wrong, and so on. It could be proof that it is wrong only in specific applications where it was tried and failed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:00, 15 June 2015 (EDT)

== People don't own formulas ==

No, they don't. But since the time of [[Pythagoras]], certain formulas, laws, and theorems are associated with certain people (not always correctly). While [[Einstein]] doesn't own [[E=mc²]], it is ''his'' formula. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 02:59, 6 August 2015 (EDT)

:What about Friedrich Hasenöhrl? Why doesn't he get any credit? It's not like he's lost in the mists of history. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 15:47, 6 August 2015 (EDT)

::Same reason that [[Tartaglia]] isn't credited for ''[[Cardano]]'s method'': history isn't just (and people like easy names). --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 16:08, 6 August 2015 (EDT)

== PBS's absurd statement ==

Would anyone like to defend the absurd statement by PBS that:
{{cquote|it's almost as if the ultimate energy an object will contain should be revealed when you look at its mass times c squared, or its mc².}}
--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 14:01, 8 August 2015 (EDT)

:I agree with you - I don't think that this way of trying to make the formula plausible works.
:BTW: while we are posing and answering questions - what about [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft and Walton]]? I'm still waiting for your answer! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:53, 8 August 2015 (EDT)

The PBS statement quoted above, with it's "ultimate energy" stuff and "will be revealed" stuff, is indeed rather stupid. That whole section needs to be cleaned up. But you need to be aware that this equation, like it or not, claptrap or not, correct or not, experimentally verified or not, theoretically proven or not, looms very large in the public's consciousness. (And I might add, the name of Einstein is widely associated with it, which is the point I made recently that you reverted.)

Most of what the public knows about it is ludicrously oversimplified and just wrong. The popular notion that I find most overwhelmingly stupid is the business about "it unlocks the secret of the atomic bomb". But the other quotes are nearly as bad.

The "Description for the layman" section and the immediately following "Popularization of E=mc²" are really just a synopsis of this foolishness. I think that material needs to be in the article, but put into perspective as oversimplified popularization. I don't agree with the edit comment "this is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Phrases like 'universally connected in the public's consciousness' are non-encyclopedic, and speculative at best." The public's consciousness of this equation is an important part of an article about it, unless you are writing a serious scientific journal to be read only by scientists. We need to acknowledge that it's a "meme", and try to put that into perspective.

The "Description for the layman" section gives four popular quotes, out of an article containing ten quotes. Of the ten quotes, only one is actually lucid, straightforward, and factually correct; ane that is the one (not one of the four) by Sheldon Glashow. The others are what one would expect if you ask scientists to explain it for laymen.

Assuming that it's OK with you for the page to acknowledge that it's well known in society at large, I'd like to leave the "Description for the layman" section in, with a prefatory note that it is extremely widely misunderstood, and that attempts to explain it to the general public almost invariably fall flat. Then give four examples as before, but adding Glashow and removing Arkani-Hamed. I'd also like to leave in the reference to the PBS article, but choose a much better quote than that "ultimate energy" nonsense. And the "energy it carried would be proportional to its mass times 100 [that is, v] squared" stuff is just plain wrong. And stupid. And unhelpful.

So can you give me a couple of days to think about this? Unless you want the whole "E=mc^2 in the public's consciousness" material to go away, in which case I won't bother.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 21:42, 8 August 2015 (EDT)

:In response to SamHB, I appreciate your thoughtful remarks, but I didn't put the PBS quotation in the entry. Someone else did (I'm not bothering to check who, and don't want to criticize anyone for it). Other quotations may be better, but it is important first to clearly state what the assumptions are underlying the formula. Does it work backwards by trying to conserve energy within the framework of the Theory of Relativity? If so, then the formula derivation really is circular, and the mass is not really a meaningful rest mass. Instead, the mass is something manipulated to try to conserve energy from different frames of reference.
::I really think it's better to have a synopsis of the "pop-sci" garbage, and a debunking thereof, '''first''', an exposition of what the formula means, its assumptions (they're really simple) '''second''', and how we know it is true '''third'''. I know this is, on the face of it, a distasteful order, but the "pop-sci" stuff has so overwhelmed the public's consciousness that we need to address that first. People will be attracted to the article because the equation is so famous, not because they really want to measure isotopic weights. Technical details at the beginning will turn them off, and they will never get to the debunking that's really important. So, if it's OK with you, I'm going to clean up the "pop-sci" stuff first, and leave it at the front. OK? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 14:12, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

:In response to AugustO, I don't doubt that some experiments may by chance have results consistent with E=mc2, just as a broken clock occasionally has the right time of day. The challenge is to demonstrate the formula across a diversity of experiments and circumstances, which of course has not been successfully done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:13, 8 August 2015 (EDT)

::This seems to work for the [[mass defect]] of all elements - astonishingly accurate for a broken clock! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 10:20, 11 February 2016 (EST)

==<strike>C is a constant, right?</strike>==
Ok, I'm getting dizzy reading through all the attacks on this page. I'll ignore all them for now, and just say that as I understand it, <strike>"c" stands for constant, not the speed of light.</strike> I'm no scientist, so I will not try continue offering suggestions. I'll leave it at this: I don't know if the idea behind it is true, and I don't even know what the formula means. However, I believe it refers the energy contained in matter, since certain matter/energy conversions are possible. Can we try to refine this a bit to state what it is/is not, then state why some might not agree? It's up to all you who have made this page, but it seems to be one thing that everyone uses against CP, and from my limited understanding of the topic, I think I just might see why. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 14:26, 9 February 2016 (EST) 
''EDIT: Okay, my mistake, "c" is the speed of light. Still, though, this is a theory of the energy contained in matter. You burn wood, you get energy. Perhpas this is an accurate represntaion, maybe not, but at least it's not as bad off as I thought.''--[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 14:38, 9 February 2016 (EST)

:Can you be more specific about "all the attacks on this page" and "one thing that everyone uses against CP"? I'm not denying those attacks, but are you referring to all the attacks, from the outside world, against CP's pages on relativity (which you can get quite a lot of by Googling "Conservapedia+relativity")? Or are you referring to all the attacks on relativity by pages here at CP (such as the "liberal claptrap" reference)? Or are you referring to the apparent opposition between the part of this article above the table of contents and the part below?

:AugustO and I wrote essentially all of the material below the table of contents. We put a huge amount of meticulous work into it. I believe it adequately explains things in terms that non-experts can mostly understand. We try to stay away from the kinds of imprecise statements about "energy contained in matter" that one finds elsewhere. Thinking in terms of "this is a theory of the energy contained in matter" is not a clear way of thinking about the equation. Do you find the presentation confusing? Or perhaps you find other articles confusing? Or you find contradictions among the various articles on the subject confusing? I want to make this article give a satisfactory explanation. Please let me know how I can improve it.

:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 16:45, 9 February 2016 (EST)

::I was general by design as to where the attacks are from. Mainly, I see the from outside, on various IQ voids known as liberal blogs like this one [https://cpmonitor.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/cp.jpg]. However, there are some rather opinionated and strong words exchanged in this talk area as well. I guess I don't have any other advice, if this is the way you want to go with it. If I think of anything, I'll let you know.--[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 18:37, 9 February 2016 (EST)

:::Got it. Yes, the criticism and arguing within CP is absolutely dwarfed by the criticism from outside. I referred to that in what I wrote in the Community Portal: [[Conservapedia:Community_Portal#Two_millionth_page_view_for_the_.22Counterexamples_to_Relativity.22_page]]. [[Counterexamples_to_Relativity|That page]] appears to be a lightning rod for criticism and scorn, and the "cpmonitor" web site is just one example. Very few of those two million views are from people who agree with it—my survey of Google references got 8000 hits, of which 98% were negative.

:::The strong words that you see on this and other pages represent an attempt to fix the problem. There is no simple solution.

:::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:16, 10 February 2016 (EST)

::::There is no unified theory of mass and electromagnetism. A century and many billions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted looking for one. Yet some people cling to the implausible equation that pretends otherwise. Such false beliefs crowd out the truth, and I doubt there are many people who continue to read the [[Bible]] after falling for the falsehood of E=mc2.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:41, 10 February 2016 (EST)
:::::Almost on cue gravity waves are discovered, a huge step in unifying gravity with the other forces.[http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/gravitational-waves-exist-heres-how-scientists-finally-found-them][http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35524440][https://www.theguardian.com/science/across-the-universe/live/2016/feb/11/gravitational-wave-announcement-latest-physics-einstein-ligo-black-holes-live] As for the implausible equation, can you explain how a bomb weighing 4 tons managed to release the equivalent of 15,000 tons of TNT? The Bible, fine book that it is is not going to help when it comes to modern science. I accept there is some some foreknowledge contained in the Bible but there is certainly no scientific explanation which would help at all in modern study.--[[User:JamieVa|JamieVa]] ([[User talk:JamieVa|talk]]) 11:37, 11 February 2016 (EST)
::::::Let's not reach for unwarranted conclusions. E=mc^2 was formulated in 1905 and experimentally verified around 1930; the gravitational wave announcement was only a few hours ago. These two phenomena are unrelated manifestations of relativity. Today's announcement does not confirm E=mc^2; it was confirmed long ago.
::::::As far as unification of the forces, today's announcement does not bring us any closer to a unification of mass, electromagnetism, or anything else. Unification of gravity with the other forces involves then ongoing research in "quantum gravity", that is, gravitons. As Professor Thorne made clear in today's announcement, the discovery of gravitational waves doesn't say anything about gravitons. Of the three articles cited above, the BBC article suggests that gravitational waves may help in future research into quantum gravity, but that is all.
::::::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 14:49, 11 February 2016 (EST)
:::::::Does wave/particle duality not apply to gravitational waves? This is a genuine question as I don't know but if it does it must mean gravitons are there.--[[User:JamieVa|JamieVa]] ([[User talk:JamieVa|talk]]) 15:03, 11 February 2016 (EST)
::::::::No. Wave/particle duality is a phenomenon of quantum mechanics, that is, the physics of the very small. Gravitational waves are a phenomenon of the physics of the very large. Gravitons relate to quantum mechanics, that is, the very small. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 15:08, 11 February 2016 (EST)

== Einstein’s Relativity and Relativism: Why Einstein’s theory of relativity is actually a powerful argument for absolute truth. ==

Please read the article [http://evangelicalfocus.com/blogs/1297/Einsteins_Relativity_and_Relativism Einstein’s Relativity and Relativism: Why Einstein’s theory of relativity is actually a powerful argument for absolute truth.] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:55, 11 February 2016 (EST)

:I don't see how this relates to the equation E=mc^2. Is this connection between Evangelical Christianity and Einsteinian Relativity something that you want people to see? If so, I would suggest finding an appropriate main space (or essay space) page for it. A talk page, especially a talk page for an equation, doesn't seem to be the right place to publicize a profound insight on absolute truth. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 15:12, 11 February 2016 (EST)
::SamHB, you are being inaccurate and mischaracterizing the article.

::For example, where does the article say there is a connection between evangelical Christianity and Einsteinian Relativity? It doesn't. You made that up.

::The article merely resides at an evangelical website and says in the latter paragraphs that there is a basis for absolute truth and it mentions at the end of the article what the Bible says about creation/truth/etc. But that is not what the bulk of the article is about and you know this. You are being dishonest. In addition, there are plenty of groups within Christendom besides evangelicals who believe in absolute truth and believe that the Bible is the Word of God.

::If you are going to respond to a talk page post, please do it more thoughtfully and with greater honesty. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 15:51, 11 February 2016 (EST)
== Re: the Einstein picture ==

I don't pretend to be an expert on relativity but I know of someone who works with atomic clocks who indicates he uses the theory. I believe relativity is a valid theory.

Also, Einstein is associated with relativity and the quote is a nice quote. I restored the picture and caption. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 14:56, 4 June 2016 (EDT)

==Kaluza-Klein Theory==
It says that no theory has ever unified gravity with electromagnetism. While not proven, Kaluza-Klein theory was developed decades ago and does exactly this. One other thing is that it says e=mc^2 cannot be derived from first principles. Could someone explain what is wrong with current derivations. [[User:PeterHockey|PeterHockey]] ([[User talk:PeterHockey|talk]]) 09:07, 2 September 2016 (EDT)

Antimatter

2016-09-01T16:11:08Z

PeterHockey: Added more detail

'''Antimatter''' is composed of fundamental particles that have the opposite [[electric charge]] and quantum spin as those of [[matter]].

[[Matter]], and therefore everything seen, is made out of particles of nature. These particles can be divided into fermions (matter) and bosons (responsible for forces such as electromagnetism and strong nuclear force). Fermions can be subdivided into baryons and mesons. Hadrons include the proton and neutron and leptons include the [[electron]], [[muon]] and tau as well as the corresponding neutrinos. For simplicity, the overwhelming majority of matter in the universe is comprised of protons, neutrons and electrons. Antimatter is matter formed from antiparticles, which have the same mass but opposite [[charge]] and quantum spin to their corresponding particles. When antimatter is brought into contact with normal matter, both particles are destroyed, resulting in an explosion that is, in terms of mass to explosive power, the most powerful known to mankind. When two particles of the same type but one matter and one antimatter (e.g. an [[electron]] and a [[positron]]), two photons are produced. Two are produced to satisfy conservation of momentum. The total mass of the particles is converted into energy, as described by [[E=mc^2]].

== Discovery ==

In the late 19 and early 20th century antimatter had been the cause of much speculation within the scientific community, With William Hicks, Karl Pearson and Arthur Schuster discussing the idea. The current theory of antimatter was set down in a paper by [[Paul Dirac]] in 1928, when he realized his version of the schrödinger wave equation for electrons also raised the possibility for the existence of anti-electrons, electrons that had the same mass but opposite charge and spin. Naturally all the other particles of matter would also have their opposites.

The anti-electron was first observed by Dmitri Skobeltsyn in 1929, using a wilson cloud chamber, and again by Chung-Yao Chao in the same year. But they were first discovered (meaning in this case observed and ''labeled'') by Carl Anderson when he separated the electrons from other types of high energy particles present in cosmic rays based on there mass-to-charge ratio. He found some particles with the same ratio as electrons that moved in the opposite direction when under the influence of a magnet. He had found the anti-electron, which he called the positron.

The anti-proton was first discovered in 1955, by physicists Emilio Segrè and Owen Chamberlain. The first anti-neutron was discovered shortly thereafter in 1956, by Bruce Cork.

== Artificial Antimatter ==

Antimatter is made in supercolliders such as the [[Large Hadron Collider]] by smashing beams of highly charged particles together. This results in pair production, the creation of a particle and its antiparticle. One of the aims of modern physics is the creation of larger and more complex forms of antimatter. In 1995 CERN announced that it had produced 9 antihydrogen atoms. Antihelium was created in 2003. Physicists are now working on the creation of 'cooler' antiatoms, as the ones produced so far are more energetic than atoms on the surface of the sun, and this makes them extremely hard to study. Another issue being studied is that of containment: since antimatter explodes on contact with normal matter, it is difficult to hold it for study. Smaller particles are held in place by carefully managed magnetic fields, but the larger antiatoms, being magnetically neutral, are much harder to contain.

== Natural Antimatter ==

Antimatter is naturally produced by both (β+) decay and by high energy collisions between particles. Antimatter makes up a very small percentage of [[cosmic ray]]s, and is occasionally produced when those rays collide with the earth's atmosphere. Antimatter has also been spotted in the [[Van Allen radiation belt]]s and forming above thunderstorms.

[[Potassium]] 40 will (very) occasionally undergo beta decay, producing an antielectron. As such, the average banana (rich in potassium) will produce a small particle of antimatter every 75 minutes.<ref>http://tertiarysource.net/ts.cgi/anti-banana</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Physics]]

Radio waves

2016-09-01T13:44:44Z

PeterHockey: Created page

'''Radio waves''' are a part of the electromagnetic spectrum. They typically defined as having wavelengths longer than about a centimetre, though this value depend on the definition. Therefore radio waves have the longest wavelength and lowest energy of any type of electromagnetic radiation. They are generally used for communication.

Matter

2016-09-01T13:33:34Z

PeterHockey:

'''Matter''' is anything that has [[mass]] and takes up space.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Biology''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1998</ref>

Matter can be converted into [[energy]]. This is what happens during a [[fission]] reaction. When a Uranium-235 [[atom]] is split apart into a Xenon-134 atom and a Strontium-100 atom, two extra neutrons will result. But the total mass of the end product is less than the mass of the original atom. The additional matter has been converted into a massive amount of energy, in accordance with [[E=mc^2]].<ref>http://www.lbl.gov/abc/Basic.html</ref>

In hadrons such as [[proton]]s and [[neutron]]s the rest mass of the constituent [[quark]]s only account for a tiny fraction of the total mass of the particle. The remainder is the mass-equivalent of the kinetic energy of the quarks and [[gluon]]s which bind them as they move confined within the particle.

==Quotes on Matter==
[[Max Planck]]:<ref>{{cite book
|title=The Spontaneous Healing of Belief: Shattering the Paradigm of False Limits
|author= Gregg Braden
|publisher= Accessible Publishing Systems
|place=
|year=2008
|pages=334
|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=UzoVQEfJ1c4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Braden+The+Spontaneous+Healing+of+Belief&source=bl&ots=XRdy979IAt&sig=D2R-LG6eNTYaC2ZrrsQvZUulrFE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=roWHUJTKL4Sk4AThwoHwCA&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=Planck%20matter&f=false
|access date=2012-10-24
|isbn=978-1-45874-919-2
|quote=Max Planck, Quote from a 1944 speech in Florence, Italy, “Das Wesen der Materie” (The Essence/Nature/Character of Matter). Source: [http://www.archiv-berlin.mpg.de/wiki/deutsch.php Archiv zur Geschichte der MaxPlanck-Gesellschaft], Abt. Va, Rep.11 Planck, Nr.1797 In original (German): Als Physiker, der sein ganzes Leben der nüchternen Wissenschaft, der Erforschung der Materie widmete, bin ich sicher von dem Verdacht frei, für einen Schwarmgeist gehalten zu werden. Und so sage ich nach meinen Erforschungen des Atoms dieses: Es gibt keine Materie an sich. Alle Materie entsteht und besteht nur durch eine Kraft, welche die Atomteilchen in Schwingung bringt und sie zum winzigsten Sonnensystem des Alls zusammenhält. Da es im ganzen Weltall aber weder eine intelligente Kraft noch eine ewige Kraft gibt - es ist der Menschheit nicht gelungen, das heißersehnte Perpetuum mobile zu erfinden - so müssen wir hinter dieser Kraft einen bewußten intelligenten Geist annehmen. Dieser Geist ist der Urgrund aller Materie.}}</ref>
*As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of '''matter''', I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.''

==See also==
*[[Aether (science)|Aether]]
*[[Antimatter]]
*[[Dark matter]]
*[[Vacuum]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Physics]]

Mass (science)

2016-08-31T19:18:19Z

PeterHockey: Added reference section

In common parlance, '''mass''' is [[weight]], but in [[science]], mass is a measurement of an object's [[inertia]], or resistance to acceleration. It can also be described as the degree to which an object bends space-time around it, according to the [[Theory of Relativity]]. One of the unsolved mysteries of [[physics]] is the origin of the rest-masses of the various particles. This origin is believed to be related to the [[Higgs boson]], which was discovered by the LHC at CERN to have a mass of around 126 GeV in 2012.<ref>https://home.cern/topics/higgs-boson</ref>

The scientific measure of weight is mass times acceleration due to [[gravity]].

==See also==
[[Matter]]

==References==

[[Category:Physics]]

Mass (science)

2016-08-31T19:17:20Z

PeterHockey: Fixed typo

Mass (science)

2016-08-31T19:16:26Z

PeterHockey: More detail

In common parlance, '''mass''' is [[weight]], but in [[science]], mass is a measurement of an object's [[inertia]], or resistance to acceleration. It can also be described as the degree to which an object bends space-time around it, according to the [[Theory of Relativity]]. One of the unsolved mysteries of [[physics]] is the origin of the rest-masses of the various particles. This origin is believed to be related to the [[Higgs boson]], which was discovered by the LHC at CERN to have a mass of around 126GeV in 2012.<ref>https://home.cern/topics/higgs-boson</ref>

The scientific measure of weight is mass times acceleration due to [[gravity]].

==See also==
[[Matter]]

[[Category:Physics]]

Nuclear fusion

2016-08-31T19:06:34Z

PeterHockey: More details added

'''Nuclear fusion''' is the process by which two or more nuclei fuse to make a larger nucleus.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Physical Science''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1999, 2000</ref> The successful fusion of two light (lighter than iron) nuclei releases large amounts of [[energy]], but to start the reactions large amounts of energy must be input to overcome the repulsive electrostatic forces. The energy is released from the mass in accordance with [[e=mc^2]]. To conserve energy, the mass of the products is less than the reactants.

In the center of most stars, hydrogen fuses together to form helium. Fusion in stars releases so much heat that the process alone keeps their mass from collapsing in on itself due to [[gravity]]. It is the reason that stars are so stable as well. If the core of a star starts to collapse, more fusion reactions occur and it expands again from the heat. If the core expands too far, less fusion reactions occur and it collapses back down. This can repeat until iron 56 is reached, at which point it becomes energetically unfavourable to continue. It requires [[energy]] to advance further rather than energy being released.

Scientists here on earth are trying to make nuclear fusion in the laboratory a useful energy source. One example is the European Toroidal Reactor near Cambridge in England. If successful fusion would supply a vast amount of clean energy, as the fuel would be derived from seawater and the by-product would be helium. Uncontrolled fusion causes thermonuclear explosions, which are used in the [[hydrogen bomb]].

== Sources ==
[http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/lib/glossary.html#fusion APOD Glossary]

==See also ==
[[Nuclear fission]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Physics]]

Starlight problem

2016-08-31T18:58:54Z

PeterHockey:

The '''starlight problem''', or '''starlight travel-time problem''' concerns the placement of stars at distances so far from Earth that starlight could not traverse that distance, at its current velocity, in less than the age of the universe. Yet the light has reached Earth anyway. This raises a question under both [[atheistic]] and [[biblical]] theories, including the [[Big Bang theory]]: how did this starlight reach Earth so quickly? This is a major point of interest in the question of an [[Old Earth Creationism|old universe]] vs. [[young earth creationism|young universe]].

The starlight problem is not in any conflict with the description in the [[Genesis|Book of Genesis]], which says, "let there be light, and there was light." It does not say, "let there be stars to generate light that can illuminate darkness," or "let there be light, and there was darkness that light later reached."

There is no way to "date" the age of light observed in the sky. It is possible that the speed of light is not constant, but this is not part of current thought. It is also possible that the universe has expanded at a rate faster than the speed of light.

[[image:Crab composite cx.jpg|right|thumb|250px|The Crab nebula, a supernova remnant]]

== The size of the universe ==
The maximum distance that can be determined using parallax calculations is about 3300 light years.<ref>[http://bccp.lbl.gov/Academy/pdfs/Parallax.pdf Parallax], site http://bccp.lbl.gov</ref> Indirect measures, correlating the brightness of stars called ''cepheids'' with the period of their variability, estimate the [[Milky Way]] diameter of approximately 80-100,000 light years, although others estimate the size of the entire universe to be as narrow as only 12,000 light years across.<ref>Fangrad, Richard, 2007.</ref>

Calculations based on the observed brightness of [[supernova]]e of known energy output can determine the distance to more distant objects. The most distant object known is a galaxy cluster is estimated to be approximately thirteen billion light-years away from Earth, observed by the [[Hubble Telescope]] using gravitational lensing.<ref>Amos, 2004</ref>

==Horizon Problem for the Big Bang Theory==

Although [[atheist]]s simplistically use the starlight problem to argue against a young Earth, the [[Big Bang theory]] has had difficulty in explaining its own light travel problem, known as the [[horizon problem]].

The Big Bang model proposes that the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) would have varied considerably from place to place early in the universe, yet because the speed at which this radiation can disperse from hotter to colder parts of the universe is limited by the speed of light, there has not been enough time for the radiation to even out, yet observations today show it to be extremely uniform<ref name="Lisle">Lisle, 2003</ref> (with fluctuations at the part-per-million level<ref>[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101Flucts.html Fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background]</ref>).
{{QuoteBox|The problem is this: even assuming the big bang timescale, there has not been enough time for light to travel between widely separated regions of space. So, how can the different regions of the current CMB have such precisely uniform temperatures if they have never communicated with each other? This is a light-travel–time problem.<ref name="Lisle" />}}

A number of solutions to this problem have been proposed, including several versions of an "inflationary model", in which space itself expanded faster than the speed of light early in the Big Bang, but ''after'' different areas exchanged radiation to even out the temperature. This model fits the data, as the CMB is only uniform at certain scales; over large enough areas anisotropies are visible in the field that match what one would expect from a rapidly expanding gas. However, there is no consensus on which explanation is correct, and each of the proposed solutions has its own problems.<ref name="Lisle" />
{{Creation vs. evolution}}

== Flaws in arguing for an old universe based on starlight ==

The observation that many stars are millions of light years away is one of ''distance'', not ''time''. Since it takes light one year to travel a distance of one light year, it is possible to view an object as it was in the past, with the number of years in the past equal to the number of light years in distance. Some scientists argue that the oldest objects visible today are gamma ray bursts over 13 billion light-years away,<ref>http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/4350/gamma-ray-burst-closest-yet-big-bang</ref> but if the universe is expanding then it should be possible to observe stars that are now actually much further away.

=== Light created in transit ===
As suggested by the "let there be light" verse in Genesis, God likely created light, not merely light sources. Accordingly, some observed light did not necessary travel from a distant star. This concept is generally accepted as an extension of the [[Omphalos hypothesis]], which is the idea that God created the universe with apparent age. One objection to this idea<ref>[http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use Arguments we think creationists should NOT use], from [[Creation Ministries International]]</ref> is that the light created in transit would make it appear, from an atheistic scientific perspective, that events happened when they really did not. But this is no different from realizing, for example, that [[Adam]] was created as an adult rather than as an embryo.

=== Moon-Spencer theory ===
Some creationists promoted an idea by Parry Moon and Domina Spencer that light somehow takes a shortcut through "Riemannian Space," taking no more than 15 years to reach Earth from the outer limits of the universe.
However, this idea never really caught on and appears to no longer have adherents.<ref>Humphreys, 1994, p. 46.</ref>

=== Decrease in the speed of light ===

[[Image:Barry_setterfield.jpg‎|right|thumb|150px|[[Barry Setterfield]]]]
Creationist [[Barry Setterfield]] has proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past.<ref>Norman and Setterfield, 1986</ref>
This idea initially found wide acceptance by creationists, but is now widely rejected, although some still hold to the idea.

One criticism of it by anticreationists was that if the speed of light had changed, we should see the difference in the [[Fine Structure Constant]] as measured by nearby stars versus distant stars, but this was not observed.
Yet in 1999, John Webb, a professor at the University of New South Wales in [[Sydney]], Australia, and his colleagues reported astronomical observations suggesting that the value of the fine-structure constant may indeed have changed. They subsequently published this in ''[[Physical Review Letters]]''.<ref>Physical Review Letters 091301, 2001</ref><ref>Sarfati, 2001</ref>
However, although this showed that mainstream scientists are open to new and controversial ideas, the methods Webb used were shown to contain simple flaws, which discredited the results.<ref>M. T. Murphy, J. K. Webb, V. V. Flambaum, Phys. Rev. Lett., 99, 239001 (2007)</ref> A later study of 23 absorption systems using the 'Very Large Telescope' found no measurable changes.<ref>H. Chand et al., Astron. Astrophys. 417, 853 (2004)</ref>

These problems with the theory have led most creationists to drop the idea, although some credit it with stimulating further research.<ref>Humphreys, 1994, p.128</ref> Systematic uncertainties are difficult to quantify and so Webb's results still need to be checked by independent analyses, using quasar spectra from different telescopes. Their efforts are ongoing, apparently by several different teams of scientists.

=== Humphreys' model ===
In 1994 Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] proposed a new cosmology<ref>Batten et. al., 2007, p.90, Humphreys, 1994</ref> that includes a bounded universe with a center and an edge, that God had created 6,000 years ago as a much smaller body than today, then stretched it out, making it much larger.
In Humphreys' model, because the universe has a center and an edge (unlike the unbounded model of the Big Bang universe), the center of the universe is also the center of a [[gravity well]], meaning that gravity is stronger at the center of the universe than at the edge.

As gravity can affect the rate at which time passes, he calculated that while the six days of [[creation week]] were passing on Earth, billions of years' of time was passing at the edge of the universe.
According to this idea, the Biblical references to time are according to an observer (real or imaginary) on Earth, so ages are given in "Earth time".

However, this theory is not without problems. The evidence contradicts Humphrey's assumption that the earth is in a large gravity well. If the earth were in such a gravity well, light from distant galaxies should be blue-shifted. Instead, it is red-shifted. Also, gravitational time dilation, if it existed on such a large scale, should be easily observable. On the contrary, we observe (from the periods of Cepheid variable stars, from orbital rates of binary stars, from supernova extinction rates, from light frequencies, etc.) that such time dilation is minor. It is thought that here is ''some'' time dilation corresponding with Hubble's law (i.e., further objects have greater red shifts), but this is due to the well-understood expansion of the universe, and it is not nearly extreme enough to fit more than ten billion years into less than 10,000.<ref>Conner, S. R. and D. N. Page, 1998. Starlight and time is the Big Bang. CENTJ 12(2): 174-194. (See also letters in CENTJ 13(1), 1999, 49-52).</ref> Furthermore, in the event the Earth was in the center of an immense gravity well, the core of the planet should be composed of a soup of subatomic particles, like a Neutron fluid.<ref name="neutronsoup">http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/nstar.html</ref>

This model receives cautious but wide support among creationists.

On Humphreys' thousands-of-years-old universe, in 1998 physicist Dave Thomas wrote that Humphreys "has his astronomy backwards - the Kuiper Belt contains the remains of the "volatile" (icy) planetesimals that were left over from the formation of the solar system - numbering in the hundreds of millions. If anything, it is the Kuiper Belt that supplies the more remote hypothesized Oort Cloud, as some icy chunks are occasionally flung far away by interactions with large planets.

Geologist Kevin Henke has criticised Humphreys for stating that "zircons from the Fenton Hill rock cores... contain too much radiogenic helium to be billions of years old.

=== Time dilation field ===

Dr. [[John Hartnett]], a creationist physicist, spurred by Humphreys' model, has proposed an alternative [[time dilation]] model, by theorizing the Earth was in a time-dilation field during the first few days of creation, from Earth's point of view, while billions of years passed for the rest of the universe.
According to the Bible, God "stretched out"<ref>For example, {{Bible ref|Isaiah|40:22}}</ref> the heavens (space), and this movement during [[creation week]] caused time to travel faster for those objects, in accordance with [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] [[Special Theory of Relativity]], adding to the time dilation caused by [[gravity]], per Humphreys, in accordance with Einstein's [[General Theory of Relativity]].<ref>Hartnett, 2003, Hartnett 2007</ref>

== Bibliography ==
* [http://www.nature.com/physics/highlights/6849-3.html#ref1 Inconstant constant?] ''Physical Review Letters 091301'' (9 August 2001)</ref>
* Amos, Jonathan, [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3490657.stm Hubble sees 'most distant object'], BBC News, 15 February 2004.
* Batten, Don, Catchpoole, David, Sarfati, Jonathan, Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter5.pdf How can we see distant stars in a young universe?], chapter 5 of The Creation Answers Book, 2007.
* Fangrad, Richard, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5425 The media spin on the creationists] (Creation Ministries International), 14 November 2007.
* Hartnett, John C., A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem, ''Journal of Creation'' 17(2):98–102, August 2003. [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1616/ HTML] [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_98-102.pdf PDF]
* Hartnett, John, Starlight, Time and the New Physics, Creation Book Publishers, 2007 ISBN 978-0-949906-68-7
* Humphreys, D. Russell, Starlight and Time, Master Books, 1994, ISBN 0-89051-202-7.
* Laird, Jeff, [http://swordofthemind.blogspot.com/2008/05/starlight-time-and-new-physics-review.html "Starlight, Time, and the New Physics" (Review)], Gladio Mentis, 26 May 2008.
* Lisle, Jason, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/167/ Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang], ''Creation'' 25(4):48–49, September 2003.
* Norman, T.G. and Setterfield, B., ''The Atomic Constants, Light and Time'', SRI International Invited Research Report, Menlo Park, 1986.
* Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2430 Have fundamental constants changed, and what would it prove?] 22 August 2001 (Creation Ministries International).
* Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2551/ Speed of light slowing down after all?], 9 August 2002 (Creation Ministries International).

==Notes==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

{{Creation vs. evolution}}
{{Stars}}

Origin of life

2016-08-31T13:40:39Z

PeterHockey: Removed bias

There have been a number of proposals regarding the '''origin of life''' on earth. However, the various proposals fall into two schools of thought.
One, held by [[Creationism|creationists]], is that life originated divinely/[[supernatural]]ly.
The other school of thought is that non-life became life solely by means of natural processes. This is commonly referred to as ''abiogenesis'' and "chemical [[evolution]]".<ref name="creationresearch.org">http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationbc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=86&Itemid=85</ref>

High-profile evolutionists [[P.Z. Myers]] and Nick Matzke, agree that the origin of life is part of the evolutionary [[paradigm]], as does [[Richard Dawkins]].<ref name="Origin of life">[http://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]</ref>

The proposal that first life came about through natural processes has not fared well in recent times. The prominent origin of life researcher [[Stanley Miller]] said the origin of life problem was more difficult than he or anyone else had imagined.<ref name="Why Abiogenesis is impossible">[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html Why Abiogenesis is impossible]</ref>

== Current status ==

Dr. Walter Bradley said: "The optimism of the 1950's is gone. The mood at the 1999 international conference of the origin of life was described as grim - full of frustration, pessimism, and desperation."<ref name="CfF">Quoted in Strobel, Lee, [http://books.google.com/books?id=caGCTtPi-aMC&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&dq=mood+and+conference+and+origin+and+life+and+bradley+and+grim&source=web&ots=iyVq9fDDDR&sig=ub92i66wAgY0UslPEM1WLlxSl9M The case for Faith], p.107.</ref>
Prominent origin of life researcher Klaus Dose wrote about the "immensity of the problem" for naturalistic explanations of the origin of life and stated, "At present all discussions on principle theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance."<ref name="CfF" />

In 1996, John Horgan wrote in [[Scientific American]]: "The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion." <ref name="members.iinet.net.au">http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/orignl01.html#orgnflfmjrprblmschcknndgg</ref>
Even [[Stanley Miller]] of the famous Miller-Urey experiment, wrote in ''Scientific American'' that the "problem of the origin of life has turned out to be much more difficult than I, and most other people, envisioned.<ref name="CfF" />
Horgan also wrote that Stanley Miller had referred to current proposals of the origin of life as "nonsense" and "paper chemistry".<ref name="creationresearch.org"/>

Stanley Miller, however, wasn't the first to highly disparage the existing proposals that scientists had come up with for the origin of life though natural means. Chemist and science writer Andrew Scott in 1988 said that "[d]ue to this scarcity of financial resources the study of the origins of life has been forced to become a most efficient and cost-effective industry from just a thimble-full of facts the scientists engaged in that study manage to generate a virtually endless supply of theories!"<ref>Quoted by Jones, Stephen E., [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/orignl02.html#orgnflfscntfcthrsnvblscntfcthrsnthrgnflfllthrsndxprmntsthrndnstlmtrncnfssnfgnrnc Creation/Evolution Quotes: Origin of Life #2]</ref>

==Some Specific Problems for Naturalistic Explanations of the Origin of Life==
[[File:Francis_Crick.jpg|thumb|right|thumbnail|200px|[[Francis Crick]] ]]
The attempt to explain the origin of life faces numerous difficult problems which is why the theory has not fared well in recent times:
#'''Chicken or the Egg problem regarding [[DNA]] and [[protein]]s''': John Horgan wrote: "Many investigators now consider nucleic acids to be much more plausible candidates for the first self-replicating [[molecule]]s. The work of [[James Watson|Watson]] and [[Francis Crick|Crick]] and others has shown that proteins are formed according to the instructions coded in DNA. But there is a hitch. DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or [[enzyme]]s. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins. To those pondering the origin of life, it is a classic chicken-and-egg problem: Which came first, proteins or DNA?" - (John Horgan,[science writer], "In The Beginning...," ''[[Scientific American]]'', Vol. 264, No. 2, February 1991, pp. 100–109, p. 103)"<ref name="members.iinet.net.au"/>
#Complexity of the [[cell]]: [[Molecule|Molecular]] [[biology|biologist]] Michael Denton wrote regarding the complexity of the cell: "To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by [[molecular biology]], we must magnify a [[cell]] a thousand million times until it is twenty [[kilometer]]s in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like [[London]] or [[New York City|New York]]. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity... Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which-a functional [[protein]] or [[gene]] - is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?"<ref>Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books, London, 1985, pages 328 and 342</ref>
#[[Catch 22]] problem regarding [[oxygen]] and the early [[earth]]: Mike Riddle cites the "catch 22" dilemma regarding oxygen on the early earth in regards to a hypothesized naturalistic origin of life: "If we were to grant the evolutionists’ assumption of no oxygen in the original [[atmosphere]], another fatal problem arises. Since the [[ozone]] is made of oxygen, it would not exist; and the [[ultraviolet]] rays from the [[sun]] would destroy any biological molecules. This presents a no-win situation for the evolution model. If there was oxygen, life could not start. If there was no oxygen, life could not start. Michael Denton notes: What we have is sort of a “Catch 22” situation. If we have oxygen we have no [[organic compound]]s, but if we don’t have oxygen we have none either."<ref>Riddle, Mike, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/can-natural-processes-explain Can natural processes explain the origin of life?] 17th May, 2007 (Answers in Genesis).</ref>
#Implausibility of the RNA World hypothesis.<ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/rnaworld171.htm</ref><ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1532 Self-replicating enzymes?], ''Journal of Creation'' 11(1):4–6, April 1997.</ref><ref>Cairns-Smith, Graham, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4148/ Genetic Takeover: And the Mineral Origins of Life], Cambridge University Press, 1982 (Quoted on Creation Ministries International web-site).</ref>
#[[Chirality]] problem<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1719 Origin of life: the chirality problem], ''Journal of Creation'' 12(3):263–266, December 1998.</ref>
#Polymerization problem <ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1791 Origin of life: the polymerization problem] ''Journal of Creation'' 12(3):281–284, December 1998.</ref>

== Philosophical Presuppositions and Origin of Life Scenarios ==

Noted [[Physics|physicist]] and [[bioinformatics|bioinformatician]] Hubert Yockey, who worked under [[Robert Oppenheimer]] on the Manhatten Project wrote the following regarding the crucial role the [[philosophical]] presuppositions play in the origin of life issue:
{{cquote|Faith in the infallible and comprehensive doctrines of [[Dialectical materialism|dialectic materialism]] plays a crucial role in origin of life scenarios, and especially in [[exobiology]] and its ultimate consequence the doctrine of advanced extra-terrestrial civilization. That life must exist somewhere in the solar system on ‘suitable planets elsewhere’ is widely and tenaciously believed in spite of lack of evidence or even abundant evidence to the contrary.<ref name="genesispark.org">http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel</ref>}}

Yockey's statement regarding the philosophical presuppositions playing a crucial role in origin of life scenarios can be seen in regards to Sir [[Francis Crick]] the Nobel Prize winning biologist who was the British co-discoverer of the structure of [[DNA]]. Crick has described himself as an [[agnostic]] with "a strong inclination towards [[atheism]]."<ref>Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books reprint edition, 1990, ISBN 0-465-09138-5, p. 145.</ref> In 1973, Francis Crick and the chemist [[Leslie Orgel]] published an article in the ''International Journal of Solar System Studies'' (Icarus) which posited that life may have arrived on [[earth]] by a process they called "[[Directed panspermia|Directed Panspermia]]".<ref name="spacedaily.com">http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04zzz.html</ref> The abstract for the aforemention Icarus article states that Directed Pamspermia is a "theory that organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by intelligent beings on another planet."<ref name="spacedaily.com"/>
[[Image:6748yuhg.jpg|right|thumb|250px|[[Michael Behe]]]]
In 1992, the popular magazine ''Scientific American'' published an interview which explored Crick's belief in the hypothesis Directed Panspermia.<ref name="genesispark.org">http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel</ref> [[United States|American]] [[Biochemistry|biochemist]] and [[intelligent design]] advocate [[Michael Behe]] wrote concerning the interview: "The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that he judges the undirected origin of life to be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a naturalistic explanation."<ref name="genesispark.org">http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel</ref>

[[Young Earth Creationism|Young earth creationist]] Gary Bates went further in criticism of Directed Panspermia and wrote that "Crick’s atheistic faith leads to absurd [[pseudoscience]]".<ref name="Bates">Bates, Gary, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/125 Designed by aliens?], ''Creation'' 25(4):54–55, September 2003</ref>
He also wrote:
{{cquote|Although he tried to solve the problem of the source of intelligence for the creation of [[DNA]] without [[God]], Crick only succeeded in pushing the problem into outer space where...it cannot be tested. After all, if such alleged aliens, in turn, were not created by a greater intelligence than themselves, then how did they evolve from non-living chemicals in the first place?<ref name="Bates" />}}
===Atheist Philosopher Doug Jesseph and the Origin of Life===
In October 1997, atheist [[Jeffery Jay Lowder]], a founder of [[Internet Infidels]], stated that he believed that in regards to [[atheism]] "the most impressive debater to date" was [[atheism|atheist]] [[philosophy|philosopher]] [[Douglas Jesseph]].<ref>http://www.infidels.org/infidels/newsletter/1997/october.html</ref> Yet Doug Jesseph claimed in a debate with [[William Lane Craig]] in 1996 that the origin of life had a detailed atheistic explanation(s).<ref>http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/doug_jesseph/jesseph-craig/jesseph1.html</ref> As noted earlier, in 1996, John Horgan wrote the following regarding what the highly respected origin of life researcher [[Stanley Miller]] believed to the case regarding naturalistic explanations of the origin of life: "Miller seemed unimpressed with any of the current proposals on the origin of life, referring to them as “nonsense” or “paper chemistry.”"<ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp</ref> In addition, as stated earlier, in 1996, John Horgan wrote the following in ''[[Scientific American]]'': "The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion."<ref name="members.iinet.net.au"/>

== Biblical creationists and the issue of intelligent life on other planets ==

Biblical creation organizations argue that the biblical and scientific evidence suggests that God did not create intelligent life on other planets nor did it naturally arise through [[Evolution|macroevolution]].<ref>
*[http://creation.com/did-god-create-life-on-other-planets Did God create life on other planets? Otherwise why is the universe so big?] by Gary Bates, Creation Ministries International
*[http://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life] by Dr. Don Batten, Creation Ministries International
*[http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]
*[http://creation.com/qa Creation vs. evolution - Questions and answers]
</ref>

== Intelligent design theorists and life on other planets ==

[[The Privileged Planet]] is an intelligent design theory documentary which argues that the earth contains a rare and finely-tuned array of factors which makes earth suitable for complex life.<ref>[http://www.privilegedplanet.com/ The Privileged Planet documentary website]</ref>

== 2009 origin of life debate ==
[[Image:Stephen Meyer.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] published an article favoring [[intelligent design]] in a peer reviewed science journal which had traditionally only published material advocating the [[evolution]]ary position.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1489</ref>]]
In 2009, Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] and Dr. [[Richard Sternberg]] debating Dr. [[Michael Shermer]] and Dr. Donald Prothero concerning on the topic of the origin of life.<ref name="greatcloud.wordpress.com">http://greatcloud.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/audio-of-stephen-meyer-vs-michael-shermer-debate/</ref> The [[Discovery Institute]] declared concerning the debate:
{{cquote|To call the debate a massacre would be a discredit to Sitting Bull. The only thing I can say is that Shermer needs to add a point to his booklet on how to debate "[[creationism|creationists]]" — namely, leave Donald Prothero at home in his van by the river...

Some of the best points came later in the debate, when Sternberg slammed Prothero with factual put down after factual put down, citing the current literature time and again. His command of the subject matter — from population genetics to [[junk DNA]] — was so far and above beyond Shermer and Prothero's knowledge, so far above their pay grade, that it was almost painful to watch him school them point after point. As I said before, shortly you'll be able to watch the debate for yourself. But be warned, it isn't pretty.<ref>http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/12/ouch_intelligent_design_guys_p.html</ref>}}

An audio copy of the debate has been made available to the public.<ref name="greatcloud.wordpress.com"/> In addition, the debate is available at YouTube.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3ThFiBLxtU&feature=PlayList&p=6C0852528AD4F139&playnext_from=PL&index=0&playnext=1</ref>

== Creation Science and Intelligent Design Theorist Views ==
[[Creation Science|Creation scientists]] hold that God supernaturally created the various animals and plants on earth and naturalistic explanations are implausible. They offer numerous arguments on why naturalistic explanations of the origin of life are inadequate.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/origin.asp</ref><ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=caGCTtPi-aMC&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&dq=mood+and+conference+and+origin+and+life+and+bradley+and+grim&source=web&ots=iyVq9fDDDR&sig=ub92i66wAgY0UslPEM1WLlxSl9M</ref>

Dr. [[Stephen C. Meyer]] argues that naturalistic explanations for the origin of life have failed and that inference to the best explanation for the origin of biological information is an intelligent cause.<ref>http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html</ref> In ''[[Darwin's Doubt]]'', he writes:
* "... invoking natural selection does not help to explain the origin of the first life"
* "Natural selection assumes the existence of living organisms with a capacity to reproduce." [http://www.amazon.com/dp/0062071475/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_til?tag=anncoulter-20&camp=14573&creative=327641&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=0062071475&adid=1QSNY85R152GT1QTA6NH&&ref-refURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.anncoulter.com%2F (prologue, p. viii)]

{{Creation vs. evolution}}

== See also ==

*[[Evolution and just so stories]]
*[[Christian apologetics]]
*[[Origin of life on Earth]]

==External links==

'''Creation science articles and videos:'''

Articles:

*[http://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life] by Dr. Don Batten
*[http://creation.com/origin-of-life-questions-and-answers Origin of life questions and answers] by [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html Why Abiogenesis is impossible] by [[Creation Research Society]]

Videos:

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZBO6Z0f84Q The Origin of Life by Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith - Video Clip]
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/videos/biogenesis_scientific.html Is Naturalistic Biogenesis Scientific?] by Dr. Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLKG1RbN4lU Did the Miller Experiment Solve the Origin of Life Puzzle? - Video Clip]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQb6e1w1I9E&feature=related Evolution vs Creation: Chemical Evolution - Video Clip]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFM-hQKkmhs Origin of Life Interview with Dr. Thaxton - Video Clip]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XytvCOJ6_7E Focus on Origins of Life - Video Clip]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeTVKrgzeHQ The Origin of Life - Video Clip]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqU2t84Jyw4 The Myth Of Chemical Evolution - Video Clip]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CKsYV5pVAs&feature=related Chemical Evolution: The Miller Experiment - Video Clip]

'''Intelligent design theorists articles and audio:'''

Articles:

*[http://www.thechurchreport.com/index.cfm?objectID=15997 Darwin’s Defenders Deny Life’s Evident Design] by [[Stephen C. Meyer]]
*[http://www.discovery.org/a/2184 DNA and the Origin of Life: Information, Specification, and Explanation] by Stephen C. Meyer
*[http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html DNA BY Design: An Inference To the Best Explanation for the Origin of Biological Information] by Stephen C. Meyer

Audio:
* [http://www.khouse.org/6640/DVD79-1/ DNA by Design Stephen C. Meyer, PhD - Audio]

==References==
{{Reflist}}
[[Category:Creationism]]
[[Category:Origin of Life]]

Intelligent design

2016-08-31T13:37:57Z

PeterHockey: Removed bias

[[Image:Intelligent design.jpg‎|alt= Intelligent design|thumbnail|300px|right|Intelligent design theorists contend that the core feature of life consists of information processing systems that cannot be fully explained as being the result of unintelligent causes alone. When [[evolution]]ist [[Richard Dawkins]] was young, he recognized that the complexity of life indicates a designer.]]

'''Intelligent design''' '''(ID)''' is the empirically testable<ref>"Dembski and Wells argue calmly and convincingly that intelligent design theory is empirically testable (in spite of Darwinists' shrill protests to the contrary) by indicating precisely what it would take to refute the theory, namely a clear demonstration that systems exhibiting [[irreducible complexity]] with specified complexity can in fact arise spontaneously by purely material processes" source: [http://www.amazon.com/The-Design-Life-Discovering-Intelligence/dp/0980021308 The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems - Amazon page]</ref> theory that the natural world shows signs of having been designed by a purposeful, intelligent cause.<ref>
An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences. [http://www.uncommondescent.com/id-defined/ ID Defined]</ref> As [[Jonathan Wells]] wrote, "ID ... asserts only that some features of living things are better explained by an intelligent cause than by unguided processes." <ref>http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/wired_science_one_long_bluff028441.html</ref> Wells, among others, uses ID to rebut the [[evolution|Darwinian]] assertion that the features of living things are "inexplicable on the theory of [[creation]]" but fully explicable as products of unguided natural forces.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/9151</ref>

The central idea of Intelligent Design theory is that [[design]] is empirically detectable, just as the detectability of design in man-made objects is straightforward, non-controversial, and often intuitive (see: [[design detection]]). With respect to the origin and development of cosmological and biological systems, Intelligent Design theory holds that the same principles provide a logical inference of design in nature. That is, without necessarily "proving" actual intelligent design in nature, the observable material evidence provides a reasonable basis from which to infer design, and such an inference supports a legitimate scientific hypothesis of ''intelligent'' design. As such, Intelligent Design theory is a scientific disagreement with the core claim of materialistic theories of [[evolution]] such as chemical and Darwinian evolution <ref>Darwinian Evolution: A materialistic theory of the history of the diversification of organisms from common ancestors through a process of descent with modification. The theory postulates that evolutionary change is the result of material causes [i.e., unintelligent causes due to the interactions of matter, energy, and the forces of nature], driven primarily by random variation and natural selection. The forces include gravity, the electromagnetic force and the weak and strong nuclear forces that define the structure of atoms. With respect to explaining the cosmos, the laws of chemistry and physics such as the laws of motion and thermodynamics dictate that material causes operate in generally periodic or regular patterns at best, and in entropy-increasing randomness at worst. ''See'', "Thirty-eight Nobel Laureates, ''Nobel Laureates Initiative,'' (The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity, September 9, 2005), stressing to Kansas State Board of Education: “[E]volution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.”</ref> that the design exhibited in our universe is merely ''apparent'' design, i.e., ''unintelligent'' design caused by unguided, purposeless, natural forces of physics and chemistry alone.<ref>As used in this article, "materialism" is used synonymously with "naturalism". Naturalism is a philosophical doctrine that material causes alone are adequate to account for all natural phenomena and that teleological (design) conceptions of nature are invalid.</ref>

In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection—how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, archeology, forensic sciences, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence ('''[[SETI]]'''). An inference that certain cosmological and biological features of the natural world may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.<ref>For example, Stephen C. Meyer, Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, notes at [http://www.discovery.org/a/1671 A Note to Teachers Stephen C. Meyer and Mark Hartwig, Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins May 1, 1993], the problem with limiting explanations to only "natural" causes: "Archaeologists routinely distinguish manufactured objects (e.g., arrowheads, potsherds) from natural ones (e.g., stones), even when the differences between them are very subtle. These manufactured objects then become important clues in reconstructing past ways of life. But if we arbitrarily assert that science explains solely by reference to natural laws, if archaeologists are prohibited from invoking an intelligent manufacturer, the whole archaeological enterprise comes to a grinding halt."</ref>

Intelligent Design theory, like all theories of origins, is scientifically and religiously controversial. All theories of origins are scientifically controversial because they often amount to subjective historical narratives that seek to explain unobserved and unobservable singular past events that occurred many years ago and that cannot be adequately tested in the laboratory. They are religiously controversial because all religions, including non-theistic religions, depend on a particular origins narrative. Intelligent Design proponents believe institutions of science, including government agencies, public schools and universities, should strive for objectivity and academic freedom in facilitating origins teaching and research. Objectivity in the evaluation and interpretation of material evidence ensures that all evidence-based explanations for natural phenomena can be considered fairly on their respective merits, regardless of their ultimate metaphysical or religious implications. Institutions of science should promote objectivity and academic freedom, especially where minority viewpoints challenge scientific orthodoxy.

== Intelligent Design, Evolution, and the Nature of Origins Science ==
'''[[Origins science]]''' is the scientific inquiry about biological and cosmological origins.<ref>''See'', '''Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science''', definition of Origins Science, '''Intelligent Design Network''' http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Statement_of_Objectives_Feb_12_07.pdf</ref> Scientists investigating such origins seek to propose explanations for the direct cause of unobserved events and processes that occurred in the very remote past that can not be duplicated under presently observable conditions and that are not amenable to experimental confirmation. Explanations can only be inferred from the evidence. Intelligent design theorists argue that the evidence naturally leads to an inference of design. Darwinists argue unguided purposeless causes ''despite'' the clear evidence of design. Because no explanation can be tested by experimental methods, the historical nature of origins science can only lead to inferences, and the question is simply which inference is most reasonable.
[[Image:Ernst_Mayr.jpg|thumb|150px|left|[[Ernst Mayr]]]]
Preeminent 20th century Darwinist [[Ernst Mayr]], billed as “one of the great shining figures of evolutionary biology” <ref>Ernst Mayr, ''What Evolution Is'' (New York: Basic Books, 2001); back cover, quote attributed to John Maynard Smith.</ref> correctly noted in his book entitled ''What Evolution Is'':

<blockquote>
"Evolution is a historical process that cannot be proven by the same arguments and methods by which purely physical or functional phenomena can be documented. Evolution as a whole, and the explanations of particular evolutionary event, must be inferred from observations." <ref>Ernst Mayr, ''What Evolution Is'', (New York: Basic Books, 2001), p. 12.</ref>
</blockquote>
[[Image:Stephen Meyer.jpg|thumb|100px|right|Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] Director and Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute]]

In a more detailed description of the method for investigating and explaining origins Mayr said:

<blockquote>
“...Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science – the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. ''Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes.'' Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.” <ref>Ernst Mayr, ''Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought'', p. 80, (July 2000, Scientific American) emphasis added.</ref>

</blockquote>

Mayr's statement does not define "evolution", but his point is valid.<ref>"Evolution" is in quotes because one of the problems faced in debating "evolution" is the lack of a precise definition. If "evolution" is used to mean "micro-evolution" (minor changes like finch beak variation observed within some species), then "evolution" is uncontroversial. However, if (as Mayr intends, but does not state) by "evolution" is meant "unguided, purposeless processes to produce new and beneficial changes in living systems", then Mayr is correct -- "evolution" is not experimentally confirmable, and, exactly like Intelligent Design, can only be inferred from observations.</ref> More objectively, his statement should be that origins (whether cosmological or biological) are due to a historical process that cannot be proven . . . but must be inferred from observations. Thus the methods used to discern the cause of historical events and processes differ from those of inductive, experimental science, and inferences based on observations should not be limited only to inferences of unintelligent causation. As with other historical sciences like archeology, historical geology, forensics and cryptanalysis, origins science asks different kinds of questions and uses different methods than do inductive sciences. The inductive sciences, on the one hand, ask questions about how the natural world generally operates based on direct experimental observation. The historical sciences, on the other hand, use abductive reasoning that asks how certain or probable observable phenomena came to be, the answer to which often cannot be discovered through direct observation. Dr. [[Stephen C. Meyer]] fully develops this line of thought.

The distinction between inductive and historical sciences is not an idea inspired by intelligent design theory. The '''[[National Academy of Sciences]]''' (NAS) makes the same distinction to defend "evolution" as science.<ref>As noted above, with respect to Mayr's statement, "evolution" is in quotes here again because the NAS fails to use the term with a precise meaning. If "evolution" is used to mean "micro-evolution" (the minor change like finch beak variation, usually inconsequential, but observed within some species), then of course "evolution" is scientific and verifiable by experimentation. However, if by "evolution" is meant "unguided, purposeless processes to produce new and beneficial changes in living systems", then "evolution" is not experimentally confirmable, as the NAS notes. However, as the NAS notes, such lack of being able to be experimentally confirmed does not remove a hypothesis from the realm of science (otherwise, as the NAS confirms, "evolution" would not be science).</ref> In its publication ''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'',<ref>''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'' Washington DC, National Academy Press, (1998), p. 55.</ref> the NAS responds to the question, "How can evolution be scientific when no one was there to see it happen?":

<blockquote>
This question reflects a narrow view of how science works. Things in science can be studied even if they cannot be directly observed or experimented on. Archaeologists study past cultures by examining the artifacts those cultures left behind. . . . Something that happened in the past is thus not "off limits" for scientific study. Hypotheses can be made about such phenomena, and these hypotheses can be tested and can lead to solid conclusions.<ref>http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/evol5.html</ref>
</blockquote>

Intelligent design theorists agree; one must not take a “narrow view” of science, such that certain disciplines like archeology, the '''[[SETI]]''' project, forensics, and intelligent design are removed from the realm of science. Such disciplines propose hypotheses, and the testing of these hypotheses is often only effective by proposing competing hypotheses and objectively analyzing the evidence to determine which hypothesis correlates best with the evidence. As '''Carol Cleland''' elaborates in her paper entitled ''Historical Science, Experimental Science and the Scientific Method'', in actual practice historical researchers tend to search for “positive evidence—a smoking gun.” <ref>Carol Cleland, ''Historical Science, Experimental Science and the Scientific Method'' (Geology, November 2001, Vol. 29, No. 11), pp. 987-990.</ref> Ms. Cleland explores the necessary role of hypothesis testing for scientific disciplines not amenable to classical experimental testing. Hypothesis testing by formulating multiple competing hypotheses is essential in the context of historical sciences, such as cosmology, geology, and biogenesis. According to Cleland, “A smoking gun is a trace that picks out one of the competing hypotheses as providing a better causal explanation for the currently available traces than the other.” <ref>Carol Cleland, ''Historical Science, Experimental Science and the Scientific Method'' (Geology, November 2001, Vol. 29, No. 11) p. 988.</ref>

== Methods of Intelligent Design Detection ==

''See also:'' [[Irreducible complexity]] and [[Argument from beauty]]
[[File:Fire-investigator.jpg|275px|right|thumbnail|Design detection is used in a variety of [[science]]s including [[forensic]] science that investigates the cause of a death or fire.]]
Design detection asks whether an effect or pattern that arose unobserved in the past is due to intelligent or unintelligent material causes. Is the pattern or effect a design or just an occurrence?

Design detection is used in a variety of sciences including forensic science that investigates the cause of a death or fire. It is also used in archeology, anthropology, cryptanalysis, copyright infringement, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence and the search for function or purpose in genetic sequences. It is key to the current debate over the origin of the cosmos and life. Are these “effects” or patterns that arose long ago the product of an intelligent or material cause? Are the effects designs, i.e., the result of intelligent manipulation, or just occurrences?

The question of causation turns on whether the characteristics of a given pattern or effect are within the capacity of the cause to which it may be attributable. Do unintelligent material causes have the ability or capacity to account for the occurrence of a replicating cell? Does Darwinism's unintelligent material causes, consisting of random variation and natural selection, have the capacity to account for the diversity of life once it gets started? To start the analysis, one should first compare and contrast the capacities of intelligent causes and unintelligent material causes and the kinds of patterns those capacities produce.

===The Capacity of Unintelligent Material Causes ===
Unintelligent material causes consist simply of the interactions of the properties of matter, energy and the forces. These interactions are generally governed by the laws of chemistry and physics, such as the laws of motion and thermodynamics. These causes do not have the capacity to “know” the environment within which they exist and then seek to change it for a particular future purpose. In other words, as stated by evolutionary biologist '''Douglas J. Futuyma''', they lack forward looking "foreknowledge. . . only an intelligent mind, one with the capacity for forethought, can have purpose.”<ref>“Darwin's immeasurably important contribution to science was to show how mechanistic causes could also explain all biological phenomena, despite their apparent evidence of design and purpose. By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. ......Darwin undid the essentialism that Western philosophy had inherited from Plato and Aristotle, and put variation in its place. He helped to replace a static conception of the world with the vision of a world of ceaseless change. Above all, his theory of random, purposeless variation acted on by blind, purposeless natural selection provided a revolutionary new kind of answer to almost all questions that begin with "Why?" It cannot be sufficiently emphasized that before Darwin, both philosophers and people in general answered "Why?" questions by citing purpose. Only an intelligent mind, one with the capacity for forethought, can have purpose. Thus questions like "Why do plants have flowers?" or "Why are there apple trees?"? or plagues, or storms? were answered by imagining the possible purpose that God could have had in creating them.” Douglas J. Futuyma, '''Evolutionary Biology''', Third Edition,(Sinauer Associates, Inc. 1998) p. 5, 8.</ref>

Material causes are to nature as thoughts are to a dead man. The past, present and future is irrelevant to material causes for they can’t comprehend it. Unintelligent material causes are not merely blind watchmakers, they are mindless, purposeless, and meaningless. Lacking a mind, they lack the capacity to “make” anything. Unintelligent material causes can adequately account for physical systems like the occurrence of rocks, rivers, wind and rain. However, it is not clear how they account for time-dependent living systems or themselves.

The laws of motion explain that matter stays in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it. Thus, patterns produced by material causes reflect an intersection of forces which start or stop the motion of matter. An intervening warm spell that melted a glacier carrying rocks and boulders caused them to come to rest in an unsorted pattern as glacial till. Similarly, when the Mississippi River hits the Gulf of Mexico it drops a load that forms a fan-shaped delta.

The starting and stopping of matter may also be produced by interactions due to the properties of atoms, electrons and molecules. In a snowflake, the particular chemical properties of hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms at a specific temperature and pressure, necessitate that they join together and stop in regular hexagonal lattices. Crystals of salt and other minerals “grow” through the stopping of atoms otherwise in motion until the source of new material is depleted or the conditions conducive to the growth change.

With this combination of law and chance, unintelligent material causes produce patterns both random and regular. Sand dunes and snowflakes exhibit regular and periodic patterns driven by constant forces. Random patterns also arise as systems are suddenly interrupted as in the case of an auto accident or a melting glacier that drops an unsorted load.

Although material causes can move matter uniformly and also start it and stop it suddenly, physical systems generally move from states of order to states of disorder per the second law of thermodynamics.

===The Capacity of Intelligent Causes===
Intelligent causes produced by minds are ubiquitous to the natural world. Humans have minds, as do birds and beavers. We are also finding that cellular systems appear to have a kind of internal intelligence. The immune system consists of cells that act as forward observers that look for foreign invaders. Those observers on the front line send messages to command central that develops weapons to be used to defend against the attack.

Intelligent causes differ from unintelligent material causes in that intelligent causes have minds hooked up to input and output devices that have the capacity to manipulate unintelligent material causes for a purpose. Intelligent causes perceive the present, store the perception in memory to build experience and then process the experience and knowledge to predict what will occur in the future. Intelligent causes have knowledge that can be processed by processors to generate “foreknowledge,” while unintelligent material causes have neither. Intelligent causes also have the capacity to choose to change the future so that a desired or intended goal or purpose is achieved and to generate outputs efficient to achieve the purpose. Intelligent causes use unintelligent material causes and the stuff unintelligent material causes produce to make a bird’s nest, a beaver’s dam or an aqueduct.

Patterns produced by a mind like the dam, nest or aqueduct often reflect millions of precise starting and stopping points not found in systems driven only by the uniform motion of regular natural forces, stopped only by accidental opposing forces. Patterns produced by intelligent causes integrate starts and stops for a purpose. The integration becomes clear when the pattern is both complex and useful. The integrated stopping points are evident in the case of the nest, dam and aqueduct. But for the stopping of matter at integrated precise points, the assembly would not function as a whole. This article reflects thousands of instances where matter has been started and then stopped – integrated - to produce precise, and hopefully understandable, meaning. Unlike patterns produced by the chemical and physical necessity of matter in uniform motion, designs consist of patterns of stopping points that are integrated for a particular purpose. Minds tie events together to for a purpose. Material causes do not. When the patterns are both complex and purposeful the inference to an intelligent cause is compelling.
[[Image:Saint Thomas Aquinas.jpg|right|thumbnail|175px|[[St. Thomas Aquinas]] ]]
In the 13th Century, the famous Christian Philosopher, [[Thomas Aquinas]], noted that systems which have a purpose either have a mind or are driven by one:

<blockquote>
"We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end....... Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer."<ref>St. Thomas Aquinas, '''The Summa Theologica''', (1265-1274).
</ref> </blockquote>

Thus design detection begins with a search for purpose. If a pattern exhibits an apparent purpose, the inquiry turns to whether the apparent purpose is just an illusion. Perhaps the pattern can be adequately explained by unintelligent material causes alone. If not, then logic suggests that mind may be the more adequate explanation for the pattern.

===Formal Design Detection Methodology===

Formal design detection is not often used. Design detection methodology is not often employed because the human mind has an inherent capacity to distinguish between patterns arranged by a mind for a purpose and those that have not. Scientists have found that minds engage in subconscious pattern matching, which is a means of intuitively distinguishing between designs and occurrences.

Formal analysis is employed when a dispute arises about the cause of a pattern. Examples include investigations of deaths and peculiar fires that look for signs of murder or arson. Archaeologists debate over whether a rock is a rock or an artifact. Astronomers analyze radio and light waves in search of messages from alien minds. So far all of the tests of extraterrestrial radio waves for intelligence have been negative. The cause of life and its diversity are major areas of dispute as much is at stake. Religious and other world views depend on the best explanation for those events.

====Formal Design Detection -- ''The Explanatory Filter''====
[[Image:Wm Dembski.jpg|right|thumbnail|200px|Dr. [[William Dembski]] ]]
Dr. [[William Dembski]] is a leading intelligent design theorist, and has written several books on the subject, including ''Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology'',<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Design-Between-Science-Theology/dp/083082314X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/104-1803249-2067114?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194228951&sr=1-2</ref> and ''The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory)''.<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Design-Inference-Eliminating-Probabilities-Probability/dp/0521678676/ref=sr_1_7/104-1803249-2067114?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194229141&sr=1-7</ref> Dr. Dembski has a Ph.D. in mathematics and philosophy, and an M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary. One of Dembski's contributions to the intelligent design movement is to set forth one method of detecting design, a method he describes as the "[[explanatory filter]]".

Dembski describes his three-part '''explanatory filter''' together with an example of its use in a paper published at '''Access Research Network'''.<ref>http://www.arn.org</ref> In the paper, entitled ''The Explanatory Filter: A three-part filter for understanding how to separate and identify cause from intelligent design'',<ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_explfilter.htm</ref>

Dembski found that all formal design detection methodologies can be reduced to three logical steps in what he refers to as an explanatory filter. The filter first asks whether a given pattern is best explained by some chemical or physical necessity or law? If not, can it be explained by chance. If chance and necessity can’t explain the pattern, does it exhibit a “specification” or apparent purpose? If a complex pattern reflecting the integration of numerous stopping points does exhibit purpose and can’t be explained by chance or necessity, then the scientific, logical inference to the best explanation is design.

===Informal Design Detection Methodology===
====Intuition, Common Sense and Confirmation====
An inference of design first springs from intuition – subconscious pattern-matching that alerts the mind to a pattern that reflects a purpose or pre-existing intention. We see knives in the back of dead man and intuitively start looking for a mind that arranged the event – a suspect. If the data are strong enough common sense causes us to follow up on that lead, not ignore it. Common sense reflects a judgment about the most prudent of a set of possible choices. If the evidence leads toward design, then common sense suggests an exploration of the lead in an effort to confirm or disconfirm it.

Therefore, at a basic level design detection is a matter of common sense, an intuitive determination we all make based on our everyday experiences with intelligently designed things. The intuitive, common sense approach is the primary method used by scientists such as archaeologists. No one expects an archaeologist to provide a rigorous "proof" that a pot or sculpture found in the ground is the result of an intelligent being. The archaeologist may not know who made the pot or why (and usually has no way to find out), but the fact of intelligent design is rarely in question. As in a similar concept of attaching intelligent agency to an event in law, we can rationally say ''res ipsa loquitur'', or "the thing speaks for itself". There is no principled reason to ignore the common sense approach when it comes to living biological systems. We may not know who made living systems or why, but the fact of intelligent design can be easily and intuitively grasped.
[[File:WilliamPaley3.jpg|thumb|230px|left|William Paley]]
Perhaps the best example of the common sense approach to design detection was that put forth by William Paley in his famous "watchmaker analogy". William Paley (July 1743 – May 25, 1805) was a British theologian and philosopher. He used the watchmaker analogy as an argument for the existence of God in his book ''Natural Theology''. Paley states his analogy:
<blockquote>
In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there... There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use... Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.

</blockquote>

Scientists who hold Darwinism dogmatically object to the common sense approach, not based on the fact of design, but on the metaphysical implications of considering true, intelligent design. Attempting to conflate the "what" of design with the "who" in biological systems is the tactic of those philosophically opposed to a supposed supernatural designer, i.e., those who fear a "divine foot in the door" of science. But such fear should not be tolerated by true scientists; design can be detected independent of any inquiry into the identity of the designer. Imagine archeology being rejected as science because there is absolutely no way to identify the designer of a clearly designed pot; such notions should be rejected by true scientists. Permitting the logical, common sense inference of intelligent design in the face of material evidence of design should be expected of honest scientists.

== Evidence for Intelligent Design in Nature ==

''See also:'' [[Irreducible complexity]] and [[Anthropic principle]]

[[Image:Phillip_johnson_arn.gif|thumbnail|150px|right|[[Phillip E. Johnson]], Jefferson E. Peyser Professor of Law, Emeritus]]
Virtually all scientists, including evolutionists,<ref>The term "evolutionist" is used in its "strong form" to describe those who hold and defend the position that all the variety of life is the result solely of naturalistic processes. Therefore, the term refers to those who rule out any intelligent causation for any aspect of life (if intelligence plays any role whatsoever, then whatever the theory, it is a form of intelligent design). While everyone is an "evolutionist" if "evolution" is defined in its weak form as simply "change over time" or "micro-evolution" such as finch beak variation, not everyone is an "evolutionist" if "evolution" is used, as herein, to mean "unguided, purposeless processes to produce new and beneficial changes in living systems". Evolutionists who oppose Intelligent Design believe that unintelligent processes of physics and chemistry can explain the creation of every novel and beneficial feature of the various species, including wings, eyes, and brains. Darwinism is the leading naturalistic evolutionary theory, holding that all life forms descended as modified forms of previous life forms in an unguided, unintelligent process, i.e., Darwin's "descent with modification".</ref> observe design in nature. Fossils exhibit design. Living body plans exhibit design. Micro-biological features such as DNA exhibit design. The evidentiary question is not a question of the '''''existence''''' of design in nature, but the '''''cause''''' of design in nature.

Only two causes are available to explain the design evident in nature: '''''unintelligent''''' causes and '''''intelligent causes'''''. '''Unintelligent causes''' include the natural actions of physics and chemistry, operating alone by natural laws in space and time. Unintelligent causes cannot produce true design, so Darwinists dismiss the evident design in nature as merely the "appearance" of design.

Intelligent design proponent [[Phillip E. Johnson]] illustrates the obstinancy of evolutionary scientists to recognize intelligent causation of design in nature when he wrote the following:
[[Image:Francis Crick.jpg|thumb|px130|left|[[Francis Crick]], co-discoverer of the structure of [[DNA]]]]
{{cquote|"One of the world's most famous scientists, probably the most famous living biologist, is Sir [[Francis Crick]], the British co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, a Nobel Prize winner...In his autobiography, Crick says very candidly biologists must remind themselves daily that what they study was not created, it evolved; it was not designed, it evolved. Why do they have to remind themselves of that? Because otherwise, the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through. What we discovered when I developed a working group of scientists, philosophers, et al., in the United States was that living organisms look as if they were designed and they look that way because that is exactly what they are."<ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/ntcreation.html</ref>}}

'''Intelligent causes''' include the actions of an intelligent agent (which may be unknown, such as in anonymous works of art, or in archeological finds) manipulating physics and chemistry to create something that physics and chemistry alone cannot. Only intelligent causes can produce true design.

The question is not, therefore, "is there evidence of design in nature?" Rather, the scientific question is, "Based on the evidence of design observed in nature, what causes best explain design?" Framed this way, potential explanations, or theories, are not limited by a predetermined bias, such as only unintelligent causes (e.g., Darwinism) or only intelligent causes (e.g., creationism). The question simply asks, "in accordance with the scientific method, what causes can be logically inferred from the evidence?"

With the proper question in mind, it is easy to see that virtually all the evidence used to support Darwinism is equally evidence in support of Intelligent Design. '''Cosmological''' evidence for design is described at '''[[Evidence for intelligent design in cosmology]]''' section. '''Biological''' evidence for intelligent design includes '''''general evidence''''' and '''''special evidence''''', and both are discussed at '''[[General and Special Evidence for Intelligent Design in Biology]]'''. For all material evidence, the evidentiary value can be determined by use of the '''[[Evidence Filter]]'''.

=== Anthropic principle ===

''See also:'' [[Anthropic principle]]

There is a strong body of evidence for a Designer that comes from the fine-tuning of the universal constants and the solar system.<ref name="creation.com">[http://creation.com/the-universe-is-finely-tuned-for-life The universe is finely tuned for life] by Jonathan Sarfati</ref>

The anthropic principle states that the reason the constants of nature appear so finely tuned to life, is that if it were otherwise, life such as ourselves would not have developed. Hence we should not be surprised that the laws of physics are enable life such as ourselves to exist.

Former [[Atheism|atheist]] Sir [[Fred Hoyle]] states, "commonsense interpretation of the facts is that a super-intelligence has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces in nature."<ref name="creation.com"/>

==Examples of Intelligent Design Theory Used in Science==
[[File:11943452 115b299206.jpg|thumbnail|275px|right|[[Forensic]] scientists use design detection when they consider observable evidence of an historic unrepeatable event such as a crime. ]]
Intelligent design detection is uncontroversial in many well-accepted scientific disciplines. In each of the scientific disciplines listed below, scientists evaluate the evidence objectively, that is, there is no pre-determined rule of interpretation that dictates that only ''unintelligent'' causes can be considered.

'''Forensic sciences''': [[Forensic]] scientists use design detection when they consider observable evidence of an historic unrepeatable event such as a crime. For example, a forensic investigator investigating a death uses scientific evidence to determine whether the death was caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., by accident), or by intelligent causes (i.e., murder).

'''Archeology''': Archaeologists are virtually dependent upon the science of design detection. Working with present-day evidence left from the past, archaeologists seek to determine whether artifacts were caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., clay) or intelligent causes (i.e., a clay pot).

'''Cryptanalysis''': Cryptanalysis is the scientific endeavor of code breaking. Code breakers examine the observable evidence of a string or pattern of characters to determine if it contains a message or if it is simply a string of random, meaningless characters.

'''Arson investigation''': Arson investigators observe evidence and attempt to explain the cause of a fire; was it caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., accidental ignition), or by intelligent causes (i.e., arson).

'''Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence''': The name says it all. These scientists are observing evidence in the form of radio signals to determine if the signals are the result of unintelligent causes (i.e., background radiation in space), or by intelligent causes (i.e., extraterrestrial intelligence).

Each of the above scientific disciplines utilize design detection to determine if the cause of observed evidence is due to unintelligent or intelligent agency. Usually, such as in the case of archaeologists observing clay pots, the detection and determination of design is intuitive and assumed without further justification. No rigorous analytical method is required of archaeologists to support a finding of design; nothing beyond the simple, rational recognition of what is consistent with the human experience of intelligent design is necessary.

== Intelligent design theorists and life on other planets ==

[[The Privileged Planet]] is an intelligent design theory documentary which argues that the earth contains a rare and finely-tuned array of factors which makes earth suitable for complex life.<ref>[http://www.privilegedplanet.com/ The Privileged Planet documentary website]</ref>

The proposal that first life came about through natural processes has not fared well in recent times. The prominent [[origin of life]] researcher [[Stanley Miller]] said the origin of life problem was more difficult than he or anyone else had imagined.<ref name="Why Abiogenesis is impossible">[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html Why Abiogenesis is impossible]</ref>

== Religious Implications of Origins Science ==
Any theory of origins unavoidably impacts religion.<ref>One should not make the mistake of equating "religion" with only traditional theistic religions like [[Christianity]], [[Judaism]], or [[Islam]]. As used herein the term is used as defined in the Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science: Religion: A broad range of theistic and non-theistic religions and religious belief systems.</ref> As stated in Article II.C of the '''Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science''':<ref name="intelligentdesignnetwork.org">http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Statement_of_Objectives_Feb_12_07.pdf</ref>
<blockquote>
Implications of scientific explanations of origins unavoidably impact religion, ethics, morality, government and politics. The implications of materialistic explanations (such as Darwinism) of origins support the central tenets of non-theistic religions,<ref>Non-theistic religions are religions and belief systems that presuppose that no God intervenes in the natural world and that material causes, such as unguided evolutionary change, are adequate to explain natural phenomena. Non-theistic religions include [[atheism]], [[Secular Humanism]], and [[Scientism]], as well as some forms of [[Buddhism]] and other eastern religions. By way of example, the Humanist Manifesto I sets forth the first two "affirmations" of religious humanism as "FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created; and, SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process." Thus, Darwinism supports the central tenets of a religious belief.</ref> while the implications of teleological<ref>Teleological: Exhibiting or relating to design or purpose, especially in nature. ''See'', Merriam-Webster Online</ref> explanations (such as Intelligent Design) support the central tenets of theistic religions. Both theistic and non-theistic religions and worldviews address questions of ethics, morality, government and politics.<ref>ibid, Article II.C</ref>
</blockquote>
[[Image:Atheism.jpg|thumb|right|195px|[[Paul-Henri Thiry]], Baron d'Holbach (1723 - 1789) was an early advocate of [[atheism]] in [[Europe]].]]
Therefore, it should not be surprising that most theists are sympathetic to intelligent design because the science of intelligent design supports the theology of theistic religions like [[Christianity]]. Likewise, it is not surprising that virtually all atheists are Darwinists because the science of Darwinism supports the theology of non-theistic religions such as religious humanism (having a theology of atheism). The simple fact is that worldviews and interpretations of evidence go hand in hand. If, for example, your world view prohibits explanations involving intelligent design, then you will reject intelligent design in spite of the evidence, not because of it.

For this reason, as stated in Article III.A. of the '''Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science''', if '''truth''' is the goal:
<blockquote>
Institutions of science should ignore religious and ethical implications of competing historical hypotheses and strive for '''objectivity'''<ref>Objective: Not influenced by personal bias or prejudice; based on facts. An objective position is one that is Secular, Neutral, and Non-ideological.</ref> in the conduct and teaching of origins science. Institutional objectivity may be achieved by encouraging healthy competition among scientists holding differing scientific views regarding origins, consistent with the scientific method.<ref>ibid, Article III.A</ref>
</blockquote>

This is because, as stated in Article II.B. of the '''Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science''':
<blockquote>
The adequacy of scientific explanations of origins depends on an analysis of competing possibilities. Origins explanations use a form of '''abductive'''<ref>Abduction, or abductive reasoning, is the process of reasoning to the best explanations. In other words, it is the reasoning process that starts from a set of facts and derives their most likely explanations. See, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning</ref> reasoning that produces competing Historical Hypotheses, that lead to an inference to the best current explanation rather than to an explanation that is logically compelled by experimental confirmation. Due to inherent limitations on the experimental validation of historical hypotheses, testing requires rigorous competition between alternative hypotheses so that their relative strengths and plausibilities may be compared. While competition among multiple hypotheses decreases subjectivity, it may nevertheless result in no adequate current explanation.<ref>ibid, Article II.B</ref>
</blockquote>

==Objections to Intelligent Design==
===Creationist Objections to Intelligent Design===
Many Biblical creationists and other theists object to Intelligent Design as failing to identify the alleged designer. This objection is expressed well by Georgia Purdom, Ph.D. of '''[[Answers in Genesis]]''' in an article entitled '''''Does the Identity of the Creator Really Matter?''''' Dr. Purdom sums up the major objection:

<blockquote>
However, the major problem with the ID movement is a divorce of the Creator from creation. The Creator and His creation cannot be separated; they reflect on each other.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/intelligent-design-movement</ref>
</blockquote>

The reader is encouraged to read Dr. Purdom's full article, as it fairly and thoroughly deals with the objection at hand. Building on the same thoughts, the Managing Director of [[Creation Ministries International]], Dr. [[Carl Wieland]], notes:

<blockquote>
The Intelligent Design Movement’s motivation appears to be the desire to challenge the blind acceptance of the materialistic, godless, naturalistic philosophy of Darwinian evolution. They confront many of the philosophical underpinnings of today’s evolutionary thinking. As a movement, they are unwilling to align themselves with biblical creationism.<ref name="CMI IDM">[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2560 CMI’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement]</ref>
</blockquote>

Referring to Intelligent Design as the Intelligent Design Movement (IDM), Weiland pinpoints the specific objection as:
<blockquote>
The IDM’s refusal to identify the Designer with the Biblical God, and in particular with the history in the Bible, means that:
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
Acceptance of ID thinking en masse could just as easily lead to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions.<ref>See the 2004 book by CMI speaker Gary Bates: Alien Intrusion: UFOs and the Evolution Connection. [footnote in original]</ref> In such instances, a Christian might well see that the metaphorical exorcism of one socio-philosophical demon would have achieved merely its replacement by others, possibly worse.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
There is no philosophical answer to their opponents’ logically-deduced charge that the Designer was monstrous and/or inept (‘look at all the horrible, cruel, even defective things in the living world’), since bringing up the Fall is deliberately, tactically excluded. (However, the Fall was a major event in history, that changed everything. The world we are looking at now is a world that has been corrupted by sin, not the original world that God designed). Thus, the movement’s success could very likely even be counterproductive, by laying the Biblical God open to ridicule and contempt in new ways.<ref name="CMI IDM" />
</blockquote>

====Response to Creationist Objections====
[[Image:Carl wieland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] ]]
Intelligent design theorists appreciate the criticisms of creationists such as Purdom and Wieland, and, in fact, most intelligent design theorists are creationists themselves. And while most intelligent design theorists would agree with Dr. Purdom that the Creator and his creation "reflect on each other," they would disagree that "the Creator and His creation cannot be separated." The "separation" is epistemological, that is, there is a distinction between ''how'' one can know anything about the creation versus the creator. Just as a painter can be separated from a painting, so that the painting is labelled "anonymous", and just as an archaeologist can infer a designer of a clay pot without knowing the designer's actual identity, the ''fact'' of a creator in nature can be determined scientifically, but the ''specific'' creator cannot.

Intelligent design theorists recognize that the scientific method places limits as to the kind of knowledge that can be determined scientifically. Intelligent design theorists hold that intelligent design is a logical inference based on observation of material evidence in nature. That is, intelligent design can be determined as a matter of science alone in full accord with the scientific method. But science can say little about who the designer is.

The intelligent design position is expressed well in an article by Casey Luskin entitled '''''Principled (not Rhetorical) Reasons Why Intelligent Design Doesn’t Identify the Designer'''''. Luskin states, referring to a law review article he co-authored:

<blockquote>
David DeWolf, John West and I also address this issue in our recent Montana Law Review article:
It is important to stress that the refusal of ID proponents to draw scientific conclusions about the nature or identity of the designer is principled rather than merely rhetorical. ID is primarily a historical science, meaning it uses principles of uniformitarianism to study present-day causes and then applies them to the historical record in order to infer the best explanation for the origin of the natural phenomena being studied. ID starts with observations from “uniform sensory experience” showing the effects of intelligence in the natural world. As Pandas explains, scientists have uniform sensory experience with intelligent causes (i.e. humans), thus making intelligence an appropriate explanatory cause within historical scientific fields. However, the “supernatural” cannot be observed, and thus historical scientists applying uniformitarian reasoning cannot appeal to the supernatural. If the intelligence responsible for life was supernatural, science could only infer the prior action of intelligence, but could not determine whether the intelligence was supernatural.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=4306, citing David K. DeWolf, John G. West, and Casey Luskin, “Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover,” 68 Montana Law Review 7, 30 (Spring, 2007) (internal citations removed).</ref>

</blockquote>
Further, it appears that Dr. Weiland's concern that "[a]cceptance of ID thinking en masse could just as easily lead to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions" is unfounded. Certainly some who are honestly convinced of true intelligent design might entertain "sci-fi notions," but the evidence supports the opposite—i.e., those convinced of design are more likely to entertain thoughts of a supernatural God. Like Aristotle of ancient Greece, those who reasonably and honestly are convinced of true design in nature are more likely to follow the pattern Dr. Pordum highlighted from Romans 1:18-20. That is, the creation speaks to a supernatural, infinite, eternal creator.

Take the example of former atheist Anthony Flew, as discussed by intelligent design theorist Phillip E. Johnson, in an article entitled '''''Intelligent Design in Biology: the Current Situation and Future Prospects'''''. First Johnson reiterates:

<blockquote>
The goal of the Intelligent Design Movement is to achieve an open philosophy of science that permits consideration of any explanations toward which the evidence may be pointing.<ref name="discovery.org">http://www.discovery.org/a/3914</ref>
</blockquote>

However, Johnson notes with respect to the practical effects of such an open philosophy:

<blockquote>
One early sign of the way the world is headed came in December 2004, when there was much comment in newspapers and internet discussion groups about famed atheist philosopher Anthony Flew. Flew had just announced that he had converted to philosophical theism (though not to Christianity or any other specific religion, at least as yet), on the basis of scientific discoveries and related reasoning, which had convinced him that there is an intelligent designer of the natural universe. Flew seems to have investigated the phenomenon of design in the natural world for reasons similar to my own. He wanted to decide for himself whether evidence and logic point in the direction of a creating intelligence, or whether God is nothing more than a subjective idea created by human imagination. Perhaps these questions about the reality of god are religious in nature, but they are important questions that deserve to be investigated dispassionately instead of being barred from consideration because powerful groups define “science” as committed a priori to naturalism.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>

Although as yet Flew does not adhere to Christianity or any other creedal faith, he has taken a giant step in that direction. In an article in the London Independent for December 27, 2004, an Oxford University theologian wrote: “What kind of God could it [i.e. Flew’s designer] refer to? One who created the universe–elementary particles, strong and weak forces, atoms and molecules, yet, for example, has no relation to the emergence of a clever humanity? Or could it be a God who was intelligent enough to create galaxies, and amazingly intricate systems like DNA, yet not intelligent enough to communicate with humankind? Although Flew does not believe in revelation, and may not feel that the Book of Genesis provides a useful account of creation, he does not seem to have quite this kind of minimalist God in mind either. In fact when pressed as to whether his ‘First Cause’ embraced omniscience, Flew admits that a First Cause, if there is one, has clearly produced everything that is going on, and this implies creation ‘in the beginning.’”<ref name="discovery.org"/>

</blockquote>

Intelligent design theorists leave the identity of the designer open as a matter of scientific discipline. Even though everyone, including creationists must rely on special revelation (i.e., the Bible) to know specifics about the designer, everyone can know the fact of design based on general revelation (i.e., nature).

===Methodological Naturalist Objections to Intelligent Design===
Many scientists object to intelligent design on the basis that intelligent design "is not science."

The validity of this objection depends on what is meant by the terms "intelligent design" and "science". If "science" is defined objectively (as in Websters dictionary: 3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena.<ref>http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/science</ref>) and "intelligent design" is defined as in this article, then intelligent design is clearly, without question "science", and the objection of methodological naturalists is overcome.

The term "methodological naturalism" describes a form of science in which science is assumed to be necessarily practiced as if naturalism were itself true (see also [[scientific materialism]]). Of course, "naturalism", which is a philosophy that holds there is no immaterial substance in the universe, i.e., all is matter alone, is an assumption-based philosophy. "Naturalism", like "materialism" as a philosophy holds that there is no supernatural in the universe, no spirit, no soul, and, of course, no God.

Methodological naturalists are scientists that, while perhaps not themselves being full-fledged naturalists (although growing numbers are), insist that science be practiced as if naturalism were true. If this method of practicing science is adhered to, then intelligent design cannot be science, because intelligent design posits the possibility of a ''supernatural'' designer.

One way to illustrate the objection is this: Consider two definitions of science:

<blockquote>
1. Science is the activity of seeking explanations for natural phenomena.

</blockquote>
<blockquote>
2. Science is the activity of seeking only natural (i.e., unintelligent) causes as explanations for natural phenomena.

</blockquote>
The first definition above is an objective, bias-free definition, for which intelligent design qualifies as science. However, the second definition above is one in which the objective definition has been qualified by the term "natural", which assumes there ''are'' natural, i.e., unintelligent, causes for natural phenomena.

The second definition is the definition that methodological naturalists insist be adopted as ''the'' definition for science. However, the "natural causes alone" criteria for gaining scientific knowledges is based upon an assumption that there ''is'' a natural cause for all natural phenomena. If intelligent design is true, scientists operating by the second definition above will never be able to come to the truth. The insistence on only "natural causes" imports a philosophical bias into the objective definition, which is then defended based not on '''''knowledge''''', but an '''''assumption'''''. Therefore, methodological naturalists "define out" of science intelligent design based on a philosophical assumption.

====Response to Naturalist Objection====

The simple response to methodological naturalism, which is the only principled basis for excluding intelligent design from science, is that methodological naturalism improperly and unnecessarily restricts the realm of science.

By any objective definition of science, including dictionary definitions, intelligent design is science. But the controversy begs a larger question. Historically, the practice of science can be considered in two broad categories.
[[Image:Francis_Bacon.jpg|thumbnail|150px|[[Francis Bacon]]]]
First there is the inductive method espoused by [[Francis Bacon]]. Bacon pioneered the modern notion that science should let "evidence lead the inquiry" and "general axioms ought to be the end, not the beginning, of the scientific process."<ref>See, Cornelius G. Hunter, ''Science's Blind Spot, the Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism, (Brazos Press, 2007), p. 15.</ref> Bacon specifically formulated his scientific method to ensure that religious speculation (including speculation about naturalism) was excluded from the scientific process. Thus, Bacon's scientific method proceeded based on observations of nature, and logical inferences derived from those observations.

Second, there is the deductive method espoused by René Descartes. Descartes argued that science needed mechanical, or naturalistic, descriptions that could explain, rather than merely label, the effects.<ref>See, Hunter, p. 17.</ref> According to Cornelius Hunter, in his book ''Science's Blind Spot, the Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism,'' Descartes proposed a method of science in which "What science needed were naturalistic descriptions, even if they were not known to be true explanations. Thus, Cartesian explanations were hypothetical; Descartes argued that having a plausible yet incorrect description was better than no description at all."

Therefore, whether or not intelligent design is "science" depends on what approach one takes to science. If one takes the Baconian approach, letting the evidence lead the inquiry without presuppositions, intelligent design is science. Moreover, if one takes the Cartesian approach, intelligent design of biological systems can still be science; it depends on what hypothetical constraints are put upon scientific inquiry. Methodological naturalists place the "natural causes only" constraint on all scientific inquiry, and, therefore, define out of science the notion of any non-natural designer.

Intelligent design theorists maintain that the "natural causes only" constraint might be correct for operational science, but for historical sciences in which one is attempting to reconstruct a historical narrative based on present-day evidence, such a constraint does not make sense. For one thing, intelligent design theorists maintain that there is a difference between inductive and/or deductive sciences (each of which can be used in experimental sciences), and the "historical sciences". Intelligent design is scientific in both inductive and historical sciences (and deductive, without limiting biases), but can have its greatest value as a historical science.

The broad categories of "experimental sciences" and "historical sciences" ask different kinds of questions and use different kinds of methods. The inductive sciences, on the one hand, ask questions about how the natural world generally operates. The historical sciences, on the other hand, ask different kinds of questions. Rather than trying to understand how the natural world operates, the historical sciences seek to understand how things came to be. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer develops this line of thought fully in an article entitled ''Science and the Laws of Nature''.

The distinction between experimental and historical sciences is not an ID-inspired idea. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) makes the same distinction to defend the historical nature of evolution. In its publication ''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'', the NAS responds to the question, "How can evolution be scientific when no one was there to see it happen?":

<blockquote>
This question reflects a narrow view of how science works. Things in science can be studied even if they cannot be directly observed or experimented on. Archaeologists study past cultures by examining the artifacts those cultures left behind. . . . Something that happened in the past is thus not "off limits" for scientific study. Hypotheses can be made about such phenomena, and these hypotheses can be tested and can lead to solid conclusions.<ref>''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'' (Washington DC, National Academy Press, 1998), p. 55</ref>
</blockquote>

With respect to hypothesis testing, see, Carol Cleland, '''''Historical Science, Experimental Science and the Scientific Method''''', (''Geology'', November 2001, Vol. 29, No. 11, 987-990).

The fact is that historical sciences operate by different methods, including different methods of testing, than do experimental sciences. Historical sciences attempt to construct a historical narrative to explain current observed phenomena. The only way to "test" historical narratives is by comparing with competing historical narratives to see which one more closely aligns with the observed phenomena.

Intelligent design, therefore, is not only science, but as a competing historical narrative, it is a valuable scientific challenge to the naturalistic historical narrative of Darwinism. Without it, Darwinism ceases being science, and becomes an unchallengeable dogma.

== History of Intelligent Design ==
[[File:Aristotle.jpg|thumb|150px|right|[[Aristotle]] ]]
In many respects the history of intelligent design corresponds to the history of science in general; since the days of [[Aristotle]] most scientists have assumed design based on the clear evidence at hand. Moreover, the history of the modern intelligent design movement must be seen in the context of the ages-old tension between materialistic science and non-materialistic science. For a timeline directed specifically to the history of intelligent design and the creation - evolution controversy, see the '''IDEA Center's''' ''"Primer: History of intelligent design and the creation - evolution controversy".'' <ref>http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1119</ref>

Plato and Aristotle both argued that nature is ''teleological'', a term that comes from the Greek ''telos'' meaning "directed by goal or purpose". In other words, the evidence of nature leads logically to the idea that behind the purely natural is some kind of rational, non-natural order, something Plato referred to as "Form" and which Aristotle referred to as "Idea". Both were led to their conclusions by the commonsense notion that if the world really did consist of chance configurations of atoms, then knowledge would be impossible. (See Nancy Pearcey, ''Total Truth'', Appendix 3, p. 390.)<ref>Nancy R. Pearcey, ''Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity'' (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004)(http://www.amazon.com/Total-Truth-Liberating-Christianity-Captivity/dp/1581347464/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195005366&sr=1-1)</ref>

[[Image:Pearcey.jpg|thumb|150px|left|Nancy Pearcey]]
Modern intelligent design theory is simply a response to the resurgence of dominant materialistic thought, primarily as expressed by institutions of science such as universities and various academies of science. As '''Nancy Pearcey''' states: "By tracing the debate over Darwinism all the way back to [[Epicurus]] (a Greek materialist) we can place the theory in a much larger context. Darwinism was not entirely new, invented out of whole cloth." Likewise, the modern intelligent design movement can be placed in a larger context as a challenge to modern materialistic thought as enforced in modern science.

For more indepth study of the history of intelligent design, see '''William Dembski's''' work entitled ''Intelligent Design''.<ref>http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.08.Encyc_of_Relig.htm</ref> In particular, Dembski's bibliography and comments are reproduced here:

Bibliography
<blockquote>

Beckwith, Francis J. Law, Darwinism, and Public Education: The Establishment Clause and the Challenge of Intelligent Design. Lanham, Md., 2003. 

Behe, Michael J. Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York, 1996. 

Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design. New York, 1986. 

Dembski, William A. No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence. Lanham, Md., 2002. 

Forrest, Barbara. “The Wedge at Work: How Intelligent Design Creationism Is Wedging Its Way into the Cultural and Academic Mainstream.” In Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives, edited by Robert T. Pennock, pp. 5–53, Cambridge, Mass., 2001. 

Giberson, Karl W. and Donald A. Yerxa. Species of Origins: America’s Search for a Creation Story. Lanham, Md., 2002. 

Hunter, Cornelius G. Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Grand Rapids, Mich., 2002. 

Manson, Neil A., ed. God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science. London, 2003. 

Miller, Kenneth R. Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution. San Francisco, 1999. 

Rea, Michael C. World without Design: The Ontological Consequences of Naturalism. Oxford, 2002. 

Witham, Larry. By Design: Science and the Search for God. San Francisco, 2003. 

Woodward, Thomas. Doubts about Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design. Grand Rapids, Mich., 2003. 
</blockquote>

Bibliographic Essay

<blockquote>[[Larry Witham]] provides the best overview of intelligent design, even-handedly treating its scientific, cultural, and religious dimensions. As a journalist, Witham has personally interviewed all the main players in the debate over intelligent design and allows them to tell their story. For intelligent design’s place in the science and religion dialogue, see Giberson and Yerxa. For histories of the intelligent design movement, see Woodward (a supporter) and Forrest (a critic). See Behe and Dembski to overview intelligent design’s scientific research program. For a critique of that program, see Miller. For an impassioned defense of Darwinism against any form of teleology or design, see Dawkins. Manson’s anthology situates intelligent design within broader discussions about teleology. Rea probes intelligent design’s metaphysical underpinnings. Hunter provides an interesting analysis of how intelligent design and Darwinism play off the problem of evil. Beckwith examines whether intelligent design is inherently religious and thus, on account of church-state separation, must be barred from public school science curricula.

</blockquote>

== Global intelligence design movement ==

''See also:'' [[Global intelligent design movement]]

''Evolution News and Views'' reported concerning the intelligent design movement:
{{cquote|Along with the absurd stereotype that support for ID is limited to right-wing fundamentalist Christians … there’s also the Darwinist agitprop point that advocates of the theory are rare outside the United States. Hardly! An unacknowledged strength of the ID movement is its international character.

Asia is an up-and-coming ID hot spot, as ENV has reported. See here for Signature in the Cell and Explore Evolution [links omitted for Discoveroid books] in their recent and handsome Korean editions.

Europe and Asia aside, how about Brazil? From South America’s most populous nation, accounting for half the continent’s total population, comes news of the First Brazilian Intelligent Design Congress, scheduled for November 14–16 this year at [details of the event].<ref>[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/intelligent_des_20090211.html Intelligent Design's Secret Weapon: The World] by David Klinghoffer October 3, 2014 11:53 AM</ref>}}

==Resources==
=== Quick Start ===
For a quick, concise overview of what intelligent design is all about, link to the following relatively short articles:

'''''Intelligent Design: The Scientific Alternative to Evolution'''''.<ref>http://idnetohio.cinti.net/media/NCBQ3_3HarrisCalvert.pdf</ref> Written by William S. Harris and John H. Calvert (of '''Intelligent Design Network, Inc.'''),<ref name="ReferenceA">http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/</ref> this article is a one-stop mini-compendium on what intelligent design is, what it claims, and why it's important.

'''''The Evolution Controversy: Understanding the Basic Issues in the Debate Between Biological Evolution and Intelligent Design'''''. By Jody F. Sjogren, Robert P. Lattimer, and Douglas D. Rudy, and presented by Science Excellence for all Ohioans (SEAO).<ref>http://www.sciohio.org/start.htm</ref> Read and understand this and you will, as the title says, understand the basic issues.

'''''Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories.'''''<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC - Scientific Research and Scholarship - Science - MainPage&id=2177</ref> By Stephen C. Meyer of the Center for Science & Culture,<ref name="http://www.discovery.org/csc">http://www.discovery.org/csc/</ref> this article first appeared in the peer reviewed Proceeding of the Biological Society of Washington, August 20, 2005. Dr. Meyer argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms. He proposes intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.

===Web Based Resources===
====The Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture====
'''The Center for Science and Culture'''<ref name="http://www.discovery.org/csc"/> is a '''[[Discovery Institute]]''' program that encourages schools to improve science education by teaching students more fully about the theory of evolution, as well as supporting the work of scholars who challenge various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory and scholars who are working on the scientific theory known as intelligent design.

In addition to scientific research and scholarship, the Center's '''Evolution News and Views''' blog<ref>http://www.evolutionnews.org/</ref> presents analysis of that relevant news coverage, as well as original reporting that accurately delivers information about the current state of the debate over Darwinian evolution.

A related website, '''intelligentdesign.org'''<ref>http://www.intelligentdesign.org/</ref> provides up-to-date information and learning resources.

====Access Research Network====
The '''[[Access Research Network]] (ARN)'''<ref name="arn.org">http://www.arn.org/</ref> is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing accessible information on science, technology and society.

'''ARN's''' articles and publications cover a host of issues which focus on such topics as intelligent design theory, genetic engineering, euthanasia, computer technology, environmental issues, creation/evolution, fetal tissue research and medical issues. ARN provides information needed to orient one's self in today's scientific and technological world in order to make informed decisions.

====The Intelligent Design Network====
'''Intelligent Design Network, Inc.'''<ref name="ReferenceA"/> is a nonprofit organization that seeks institutional objectivity in origins science. Objectivity results from the use of the [[scientific method]] without philosophic or religious assumptions in seeking answers to the question: Where do we come from?

The Intelligent Design Network produced a Statement of Objectives <ref name="intelligentdesignnetwork.org"/> regarding origins science. The Statement acknowledges that explanations of the origin of the universe and of life and its diversity are scientifically controversial. Further, due to its controversial nature, Origins Science requires a scientific enterprise guided by '''scientific objectivity'' rather than a preconceived view of origins, whether Materialistic (e.g., Darwinism) or Teleological (e.g., creationism). For this reason, according to the Statement, government and public education institutions supporting Origins Science should strive for objectivity as they inform the public about the state of our scientific knowledge regarding origins.

====The Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center====

The '''Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center'''<ref>http://www.ideacenter.org/</ref> is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting intelligent design theory and fostering good - spirited discussion and a better understanding over intelligent design theory and the creation - evolution issue among students, educators, churches, and anyone else interested. The Center's primary focus is to help students form "IDEA Clubs" on university and high school campuses.

====ID the Future====
Intelligent Design's "Super Blog", '''ID the Future'''<ref>http://www.idthefuture.com/</ref> offers podcasts as part of its mission of exploring the issues central to evolution and intelligent design (ID). IDTF provides listeners with the most current news and views on evolution and ID through brief interviews with key scientists and scholars developing the theory of ID, as well as insightful commentary from '''Discovery Institute''' senior fellows and staff on the scientific, educational and legal aspects of the debate.

====Uncommon Descent====
The intelligent design weblog of [[William Dembski]], Denyse O'Leary, and friends, '''Uncommon Descent'''<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/</ref> holds that...
Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins. At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution—an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project.

====The Post-Darwinist====
Toronto-based '''Denyse O'Leary's''' blog,<ref>http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/</ref> covering the intelligent design movement from a journalist/author's perspective.

===Books, Tapes, DVD's===

====Discovery Institute====
The '''Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture''' "Essential Readings" list<ref>http://www.discovery.org/csc/essentialReadings.php</ref> includes links to books and articles by leading intelligent design proponents.

====Access Research Network====
Books available from '''Access Research Network's'''<ref name="arn.org"/> book catalog<ref name="astore.amazon.com">http://astore.amazon.com/a0ed97-20</ref> and videos/tapes (including DVD's)<ref name="astore.amazon.com"/><ref>[http://www.arn.org/origins-101.html ARN Videos]</ref> include the latest information on the subject of intelligent design.

==See also==

*[[Intelligent design movement]]
*[[Atheism and reason]]
*[[Irreligion and superstition]]
*[[Creation Science]]

== External links ==
*[http://www.intelligentdesign.org/ IntelligentDesign.org]

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Intelligent Design| ]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Evidence for intelligent design in cosmology

2016-08-31T13:34:58Z

PeterHockey:

[[Image:Galaxy_2.jpg‎|left]]
The observable evidence of design is not limited to design in biology, but extends to the entire observable universe. The [[Anthropic principle]] argues against this being true.

== From the IDEA Center ==

Consider the article, '''''Evidence of the Design of the Universe through the Anthropic Principle'''''<ref>http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/837</ref> found at the '''Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center (IDEA)'''<ref>http://www.ideacenter.org/</ref> 
<blockquote>
There is an abundant wealth of evidence from the workings of physics, chemistry, and properties of the universe, our solar system, and earth which indicate that life on earth did not happen by accident--it was planned. These arguments are typically called "anthropic principles," where physical properties or parameters seem to be "just right" or "fine-tuned" to allow for life--and not necessarily just for life as we know it.
</blockquote>

== From William Lane Craig ==
[[Image:William_Lane_Craig.jpg|thumb|150px|right|William Lane Craig, Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California]]
Consider the article, '''''The Teleological Argument and the Anthropic Principle'''''<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/teleo.html</ref> by [[William Lane Craig]].<ref>William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California.</ref> Dr. Craig states:
<blockquote>
In recent years, however, the scientific community has been stunned by its discovery of how complex and sensitive a nexus of conditions must be given in order for the universe to permit the origin and evolution of intelligent life on Earth. The universe appears, in fact, to have been incredibly fine-tuned from the moment of its inception for the production of intelligent life on Earth at this point in cosmic history. In the various fields of physics and astrophysics, classical cosmology, quantum mechanics, and biochemistry, various discoveries have repeatedly disclosed that the existence of intelligent carbon-based life on Earth at this time depends upon a delicate balance of physical and cosmological quantities, such that were any one of these quantities to be slightly altered, the balance would be destroyed and life would not exist.

</blockquote>

== From Michael Behe ==
[[Image:Mike_Behe.jpg|thumb|100px|left|Michael Behe, PhD. Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University]]
In response to the question, "How does your view of intelligent design in biology fit with the findings and theories of cosmology and physics?" '''[[Michael Behe]]''', author and Professor of Biological Sciences at [[Lehigh University]] in Pennsylvania, provided the following answer:
<blockquote>
The conclusion of intelligent design in biology fits very well with unexpected results in the past few decades from physics and astronomy, which show that the universe, its laws, physical constants, and many details, are “fine-tuned” for life on earth. For example, if the charge on the electron or the properties of water were much different, life as we know it would be precluded. Biology has now discovered that the fine tuning of the universe for life actually extends into life. The term “consilience” denotes the situation where results from several scientific areas point in the same direction, reinforcing our confidence that the conclusion is correct. Biology has attained consilience with results from cosmology and physics.
--Question & Answer With Michael J. Behe, author of '''The Edge of Evolution:
The Search for the Limits of Darwinism''' <ref>http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/A3DGRQ0IO7KYQ2/ref=cm_blog_blog/104-5653991-7255137</ref></blockquote>

== From Stephen C. Meyer ==
[[Image:Stephen Meyer.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Stephen C. Meyer, PhD. published an article favoring [[intelligent design]] in a peer reviewed science journal which had traditionally only published material advocating the evolutionary position.]]
Consider the article by [[Meyer, Stephen C.|'''Stephen C. Meyer''']],<ref>Stephen C. Meyer is director and Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the [[Discovery Institute]], in Seattle.
</ref> entitled, '''''Evidence for Design in Physics and Biology: From the Origin of the Universe to the Origin of Life'''''.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=847</ref>

Meyer states:
<blockquote>
[C]onsider the following illustration. Imagine that you are a cosmic explorer who has just stumbled into the control room of the whole universe. There you discover an elaborate “universe-creating machine”, with rows and rows of dials, each with many possible settings. As you investigate, you learn that each dial represents some particular parameter that has to be calibrated with a precise value in order to create a universe in which life can exist. One dial represents the possible settings for the strong nuclear force, one for the gravitational constant, one for Planck’s constant, one for the ratio for the neutron mass to the proton mass, one for the strength of the electromagnetic attraction, and so on. As you, the cosmic explorer, examine the dials, you find that they could easily have been turned to different settings. Moreover, you determine by careful calculation that if any of the dial settings were even slightly altered, life would cease to exist. Yet for some reason each dial is set at just the exact value necessary to keep the universe running. What do you infer about the origin of these finely tuned dial settings?
</blockquote>

== References ==
{{reflist}}

==See also==

* [[Intelligent design]]

[[Category:Intelligent Design]]

Intelligent design

2016-08-31T13:17:18Z

PeterHockey: Added bit about anthropic principle

[[Image:Intelligent design.jpg‎|alt= Intelligent design|thumbnail|300px|right|Intelligent design theorists contend that the core feature of life consists of information processing systems that cannot be fully explained as being the result of unintelligent causes alone. When [[evolution]]ist [[Richard Dawkins]] was young, he recognized that the complexity of life indicates a designer.]]

'''Intelligent design''' '''(ID)''' is the empirically testable<ref>"Dembski and Wells argue calmly and convincingly that intelligent design theory is empirically testable (in spite of Darwinists' shrill protests to the contrary) by indicating precisely what it would take to refute the theory, namely a clear demonstration that systems exhibiting [[irreducible complexity]] with specified complexity can in fact arise spontaneously by purely material processes" source: [http://www.amazon.com/The-Design-Life-Discovering-Intelligence/dp/0980021308 The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems - Amazon page]</ref> theory that the natural world shows signs of having been designed by a purposeful, intelligent cause.<ref>
An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences. [http://www.uncommondescent.com/id-defined/ ID Defined]</ref> As [[Jonathan Wells]] wrote, "ID ... asserts only that some features of living things are better explained by an intelligent cause than by unguided processes." <ref>http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/wired_science_one_long_bluff028441.html</ref> Wells, among others, uses ID to rebut the [[evolution|Darwinian]] assertion that the features of living things are "inexplicable on the theory of [[creation]]" but fully explicable as products of unguided natural forces.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/9151</ref>

The central idea of Intelligent Design theory is that [[design]] is empirically detectable, just as the detectability of design in man-made objects is straightforward, non-controversial, and often intuitive (see: [[design detection]]). With respect to the origin and development of cosmological and biological systems, Intelligent Design theory holds that the same principles provide a logical inference of design in nature. That is, without necessarily "proving" actual intelligent design in nature, the observable material evidence provides a reasonable basis from which to infer design, and such an inference supports a legitimate scientific hypothesis of ''intelligent'' design. As such, Intelligent Design theory is a scientific disagreement with the core claim of materialistic theories of [[evolution]] such as chemical and Darwinian evolution <ref>Darwinian Evolution: A materialistic theory of the history of the diversification of organisms from common ancestors through a process of descent with modification. The theory postulates that evolutionary change is the result of material causes [i.e., unintelligent causes due to the interactions of matter, energy, and the forces of nature], driven primarily by random variation and natural selection. The forces include gravity, the electromagnetic force and the weak and strong nuclear forces that define the structure of atoms. With respect to explaining the cosmos, the laws of chemistry and physics such as the laws of motion and thermodynamics dictate that material causes operate in generally periodic or regular patterns at best, and in entropy-increasing randomness at worst. ''See'', "Thirty-eight Nobel Laureates, ''Nobel Laureates Initiative,'' (The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity, September 9, 2005), stressing to Kansas State Board of Education: “[E]volution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.”</ref> that the design exhibited in our universe is merely ''apparent'' design, i.e., ''unintelligent'' design caused by unguided, purposeless, natural forces of physics and chemistry alone.<ref>As used in this article, "materialism" is used synonymously with "naturalism". Naturalism is a philosophical doctrine that material causes alone are adequate to account for all natural phenomena and that teleological (design) conceptions of nature are invalid.</ref>

In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection—how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, archeology, forensic sciences, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence ('''[[SETI]]'''). An inference that certain cosmological and biological features of the natural world may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.<ref>For example, Stephen C. Meyer, Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, notes at [http://www.discovery.org/a/1671 A Note to Teachers Stephen C. Meyer and Mark Hartwig, Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins May 1, 1993], the problem with limiting explanations to only "natural" causes: "Archaeologists routinely distinguish manufactured objects (e.g., arrowheads, potsherds) from natural ones (e.g., stones), even when the differences between them are very subtle. These manufactured objects then become important clues in reconstructing past ways of life. But if we arbitrarily assert that science explains solely by reference to natural laws, if archaeologists are prohibited from invoking an intelligent manufacturer, the whole archaeological enterprise comes to a grinding halt."</ref>

Intelligent Design theory, like all theories of origins, is scientifically and religiously controversial. All theories of origins are scientifically controversial because they often amount to subjective historical narratives that seek to explain unobserved and unobservable singular past events that occurred many years ago and that cannot be adequately tested in the laboratory. They are religiously controversial because all religions, including non-theistic religions, depend on a particular origins narrative. Intelligent Design proponents believe institutions of science, including government agencies, public schools and universities, should strive for objectivity and academic freedom in facilitating origins teaching and research. Objectivity in the evaluation and interpretation of material evidence ensures that all evidence-based explanations for natural phenomena can be considered fairly on their respective merits, regardless of their ultimate metaphysical or religious implications. Institutions of science should promote objectivity and academic freedom, especially where minority viewpoints challenge scientific orthodoxy.

== Intelligent Design, Evolution, and the Nature of Origins Science ==
'''[[Origins science]]''' is the scientific inquiry about biological and cosmological origins.<ref>''See'', '''Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science''', definition of Origins Science, '''Intelligent Design Network''' http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Statement_of_Objectives_Feb_12_07.pdf</ref> Scientists investigating such origins seek to propose explanations for the direct cause of unobserved events and processes that occurred in the very remote past that can not be duplicated under presently observable conditions and that are not amenable to experimental confirmation. Explanations can only be inferred from the evidence. Intelligent design theorists argue that the evidence naturally leads to an inference of design. Darwinists argue unguided purposeless causes ''despite'' the clear evidence of design. Because no explanation can be tested by experimental methods, the historical nature of origins science can only lead to inferences, and the question is simply which inference is most reasonable.
[[Image:Ernst_Mayr.jpg|thumb|150px|left|[[Ernst Mayr]]]]
Preeminent 20th century Darwinist [[Ernst Mayr]], billed as “one of the great shining figures of evolutionary biology” <ref>Ernst Mayr, ''What Evolution Is'' (New York: Basic Books, 2001); back cover, quote attributed to John Maynard Smith.</ref> correctly noted in his book entitled ''What Evolution Is'':

<blockquote>
"Evolution is a historical process that cannot be proven by the same arguments and methods by which purely physical or functional phenomena can be documented. Evolution as a whole, and the explanations of particular evolutionary event, must be inferred from observations." <ref>Ernst Mayr, ''What Evolution Is'', (New York: Basic Books, 2001), p. 12.</ref>
</blockquote>
[[Image:Stephen Meyer.jpg|thumb|100px|right|Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] Director and Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute]]

In a more detailed description of the method for investigating and explaining origins Mayr said:

<blockquote>
“...Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science – the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. ''Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes.'' Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.” <ref>Ernst Mayr, ''Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought'', p. 80, (July 2000, Scientific American) emphasis added.</ref>

</blockquote>

Mayr's statement does not define "evolution", but his point is valid.<ref>"Evolution" is in quotes because one of the problems faced in debating "evolution" is the lack of a precise definition. If "evolution" is used to mean "micro-evolution" (minor changes like finch beak variation observed within some species), then "evolution" is uncontroversial. However, if (as Mayr intends, but does not state) by "evolution" is meant "unguided, purposeless processes to produce new and beneficial changes in living systems", then Mayr is correct -- "evolution" is not experimentally confirmable, and, exactly like Intelligent Design, can only be inferred from observations.</ref> More objectively, his statement should be that origins (whether cosmological or biological) are due to a historical process that cannot be proven . . . but must be inferred from observations. Thus the methods used to discern the cause of historical events and processes differ from those of inductive, experimental science, and inferences based on observations should not be limited only to inferences of unintelligent causation. As with other historical sciences like archeology, historical geology, forensics and cryptanalysis, origins science asks different kinds of questions and uses different methods than do inductive sciences. The inductive sciences, on the one hand, ask questions about how the natural world generally operates based on direct experimental observation. The historical sciences, on the other hand, use abductive reasoning that asks how certain or probable observable phenomena came to be, the answer to which often cannot be discovered through direct observation. Dr. [[Stephen C. Meyer]] fully develops this line of thought.

The distinction between inductive and historical sciences is not an idea inspired by intelligent design theory. The '''[[National Academy of Sciences]]''' (NAS) makes the same distinction to defend "evolution" as science.<ref>As noted above, with respect to Mayr's statement, "evolution" is in quotes here again because the NAS fails to use the term with a precise meaning. If "evolution" is used to mean "micro-evolution" (the minor change like finch beak variation, usually inconsequential, but observed within some species), then of course "evolution" is scientific and verifiable by experimentation. However, if by "evolution" is meant "unguided, purposeless processes to produce new and beneficial changes in living systems", then "evolution" is not experimentally confirmable, as the NAS notes. However, as the NAS notes, such lack of being able to be experimentally confirmed does not remove a hypothesis from the realm of science (otherwise, as the NAS confirms, "evolution" would not be science).</ref> In its publication ''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'',<ref>''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'' Washington DC, National Academy Press, (1998), p. 55.</ref> the NAS responds to the question, "How can evolution be scientific when no one was there to see it happen?":

<blockquote>
This question reflects a narrow view of how science works. Things in science can be studied even if they cannot be directly observed or experimented on. Archaeologists study past cultures by examining the artifacts those cultures left behind. . . . Something that happened in the past is thus not "off limits" for scientific study. Hypotheses can be made about such phenomena, and these hypotheses can be tested and can lead to solid conclusions.<ref>http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/evol5.html</ref>
</blockquote>

Intelligent design theorists agree; one must not take a “narrow view” of science, such that certain disciplines like archeology, the '''[[SETI]]''' project, forensics, and intelligent design are removed from the realm of science. Such disciplines propose hypotheses, and the testing of these hypotheses is often only effective by proposing competing hypotheses and objectively analyzing the evidence to determine which hypothesis correlates best with the evidence. As '''Carol Cleland''' elaborates in her paper entitled ''Historical Science, Experimental Science and the Scientific Method'', in actual practice historical researchers tend to search for “positive evidence—a smoking gun.” <ref>Carol Cleland, ''Historical Science, Experimental Science and the Scientific Method'' (Geology, November 2001, Vol. 29, No. 11), pp. 987-990.</ref> Ms. Cleland explores the necessary role of hypothesis testing for scientific disciplines not amenable to classical experimental testing. Hypothesis testing by formulating multiple competing hypotheses is essential in the context of historical sciences, such as cosmology, geology, and biogenesis. According to Cleland, “A smoking gun is a trace that picks out one of the competing hypotheses as providing a better causal explanation for the currently available traces than the other.” <ref>Carol Cleland, ''Historical Science, Experimental Science and the Scientific Method'' (Geology, November 2001, Vol. 29, No. 11) p. 988.</ref>

== Methods of Intelligent Design Detection ==

''See also:'' [[Irreducible complexity]] and [[Argument from beauty]]
[[File:Fire-investigator.jpg|275px|right|thumbnail|Design detection is used in a variety of [[science]]s including [[forensic]] science that investigates the cause of a death or fire.]]
Design detection asks whether an effect or pattern that arose unobserved in the past is due to intelligent or unintelligent material causes. Is the pattern or effect a design or just an occurrence?

Design detection is used in a variety of sciences including forensic science that investigates the cause of a death or fire. It is also used in archeology, anthropology, cryptanalysis, copyright infringement, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence and the search for function or purpose in genetic sequences. It is key to the current debate over the origin of the cosmos and life. Are these “effects” or patterns that arose long ago the product of an intelligent or material cause? Are the effects designs, i.e., the result of intelligent manipulation, or just occurrences?

The question of causation turns on whether the characteristics of a given pattern or effect are within the capacity of the cause to which it may be attributable. Do unintelligent material causes have the ability or capacity to account for the occurrence of a replicating cell? Does Darwinism's unintelligent material causes, consisting of random variation and natural selection, have the capacity to account for the diversity of life once it gets started? To start the analysis, one should first compare and contrast the capacities of intelligent causes and unintelligent material causes and the kinds of patterns those capacities produce.

===The Capacity of Unintelligent Material Causes ===
Unintelligent material causes consist simply of the interactions of the properties of matter, energy and the forces. These interactions are generally governed by the laws of chemistry and physics, such as the laws of motion and thermodynamics. These causes do not have the capacity to “know” the environment within which they exist and then seek to change it for a particular future purpose. In other words, as stated by evolutionary biologist '''Douglas J. Futuyma''', they lack forward looking "foreknowledge. . . only an intelligent mind, one with the capacity for forethought, can have purpose.”<ref>“Darwin's immeasurably important contribution to science was to show how mechanistic causes could also explain all biological phenomena, despite their apparent evidence of design and purpose. By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. ......Darwin undid the essentialism that Western philosophy had inherited from Plato and Aristotle, and put variation in its place. He helped to replace a static conception of the world with the vision of a world of ceaseless change. Above all, his theory of random, purposeless variation acted on by blind, purposeless natural selection provided a revolutionary new kind of answer to almost all questions that begin with "Why?" It cannot be sufficiently emphasized that before Darwin, both philosophers and people in general answered "Why?" questions by citing purpose. Only an intelligent mind, one with the capacity for forethought, can have purpose. Thus questions like "Why do plants have flowers?" or "Why are there apple trees?"? or plagues, or storms? were answered by imagining the possible purpose that God could have had in creating them.” Douglas J. Futuyma, '''Evolutionary Biology''', Third Edition,(Sinauer Associates, Inc. 1998) p. 5, 8.</ref>

Material causes are to nature as thoughts are to a dead man. The past, present and future is irrelevant to material causes for they can’t comprehend it. Unintelligent material causes are not merely blind watchmakers, they are mindless, purposeless, and meaningless. Lacking a mind, they lack the capacity to “make” anything. Unintelligent material causes can adequately account for physical systems like the occurrence of rocks, rivers, wind and rain. However, it is not clear how they account for time-dependent living systems or themselves.

The laws of motion explain that matter stays in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it. Thus, patterns produced by material causes reflect an intersection of forces which start or stop the motion of matter. An intervening warm spell that melted a glacier carrying rocks and boulders caused them to come to rest in an unsorted pattern as glacial till. Similarly, when the Mississippi River hits the Gulf of Mexico it drops a load that forms a fan-shaped delta.

The starting and stopping of matter may also be produced by interactions due to the properties of atoms, electrons and molecules. In a snowflake, the particular chemical properties of hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms at a specific temperature and pressure, necessitate that they join together and stop in regular hexagonal lattices. Crystals of salt and other minerals “grow” through the stopping of atoms otherwise in motion until the source of new material is depleted or the conditions conducive to the growth change.

With this combination of law and chance, unintelligent material causes produce patterns both random and regular. Sand dunes and snowflakes exhibit regular and periodic patterns driven by constant forces. Random patterns also arise as systems are suddenly interrupted as in the case of an auto accident or a melting glacier that drops an unsorted load.

Although material causes can move matter uniformly and also start it and stop it suddenly, physical systems generally move from states of order to states of disorder per the second law of thermodynamics.

===The Capacity of Intelligent Causes===
Intelligent causes produced by minds are ubiquitous to the natural world. Humans have minds, as do birds and beavers. We are also finding that cellular systems appear to have a kind of internal intelligence. The immune system consists of cells that act as forward observers that look for foreign invaders. Those observers on the front line send messages to command central that develops weapons to be used to defend against the attack.

Intelligent causes differ from unintelligent material causes in that intelligent causes have minds hooked up to input and output devices that have the capacity to manipulate unintelligent material causes for a purpose. Intelligent causes perceive the present, store the perception in memory to build experience and then process the experience and knowledge to predict what will occur in the future. Intelligent causes have knowledge that can be processed by processors to generate “foreknowledge,” while unintelligent material causes have neither. Intelligent causes also have the capacity to choose to change the future so that a desired or intended goal or purpose is achieved and to generate outputs efficient to achieve the purpose. Intelligent causes use unintelligent material causes and the stuff unintelligent material causes produce to make a bird’s nest, a beaver’s dam or an aqueduct.

Patterns produced by a mind like the dam, nest or aqueduct often reflect millions of precise starting and stopping points not found in systems driven only by the uniform motion of regular natural forces, stopped only by accidental opposing forces. Patterns produced by intelligent causes integrate starts and stops for a purpose. The integration becomes clear when the pattern is both complex and useful. The integrated stopping points are evident in the case of the nest, dam and aqueduct. But for the stopping of matter at integrated precise points, the assembly would not function as a whole. This article reflects thousands of instances where matter has been started and then stopped – integrated - to produce precise, and hopefully understandable, meaning. Unlike patterns produced by the chemical and physical necessity of matter in uniform motion, designs consist of patterns of stopping points that are integrated for a particular purpose. Minds tie events together to for a purpose. Material causes do not. When the patterns are both complex and purposeful the inference to an intelligent cause is compelling.
[[Image:Saint Thomas Aquinas.jpg|right|thumbnail|175px|[[St. Thomas Aquinas]] ]]
In the 13th Century, the famous Christian Philosopher, [[Thomas Aquinas]], noted that systems which have a purpose either have a mind or are driven by one:

<blockquote>
"We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end....... Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer."<ref>St. Thomas Aquinas, '''The Summa Theologica''', (1265-1274).
</ref> </blockquote>

Thus design detection begins with a search for purpose. If a pattern exhibits an apparent purpose, the inquiry turns to whether the apparent purpose is just an illusion. Perhaps the pattern can be adequately explained by unintelligent material causes alone. If not, then logic suggests that mind may be the more adequate explanation for the pattern.

===Formal Design Detection Methodology===

Formal design detection is not often used. Design detection methodology is not often employed because the human mind has an inherent capacity to distinguish between patterns arranged by a mind for a purpose and those that have not. Scientists have found that minds engage in subconscious pattern matching, which is a means of intuitively distinguishing between designs and occurrences.

Formal analysis is employed when a dispute arises about the cause of a pattern. Examples include investigations of deaths and peculiar fires that look for signs of murder or arson. Archaeologists debate over whether a rock is a rock or an artifact. Astronomers analyze radio and light waves in search of messages from alien minds. So far all of the tests of extraterrestrial radio waves for intelligence have been negative. The cause of life and its diversity are major areas of dispute as much is at stake. Religious and other world views depend on the best explanation for those events.

====Formal Design Detection -- ''The Explanatory Filter''====
[[Image:Wm Dembski.jpg|right|thumbnail|200px|Dr. [[William Dembski]] ]]
Dr. [[William Dembski]] is a leading intelligent design theorist, and has written several books on the subject, including ''Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology'',<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Design-Between-Science-Theology/dp/083082314X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/104-1803249-2067114?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194228951&sr=1-2</ref> and ''The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory)''.<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Design-Inference-Eliminating-Probabilities-Probability/dp/0521678676/ref=sr_1_7/104-1803249-2067114?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194229141&sr=1-7</ref> Dr. Dembski has a Ph.D. in mathematics and philosophy, and an M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary. One of Dembski's contributions to the intelligent design movement is to set forth one method of detecting design, a method he describes as the "[[explanatory filter]]".

Dembski describes his three-part '''explanatory filter''' together with an example of its use in a paper published at '''Access Research Network'''.<ref>http://www.arn.org</ref> In the paper, entitled ''The Explanatory Filter: A three-part filter for understanding how to separate and identify cause from intelligent design'',<ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_explfilter.htm</ref>

Dembski found that all formal design detection methodologies can be reduced to three logical steps in what he refers to as an explanatory filter. The filter first asks whether a given pattern is best explained by some chemical or physical necessity or law? If not, can it be explained by chance. If chance and necessity can’t explain the pattern, does it exhibit a “specification” or apparent purpose? If a complex pattern reflecting the integration of numerous stopping points does exhibit purpose and can’t be explained by chance or necessity, then the scientific, logical inference to the best explanation is design.

===Informal Design Detection Methodology===
====Intuition, Common Sense and Confirmation====
An inference of design first springs from intuition – subconscious pattern-matching that alerts the mind to a pattern that reflects a purpose or pre-existing intention. We see knives in the back of dead man and intuitively start looking for a mind that arranged the event – a suspect. If the data are strong enough common sense causes us to follow up on that lead, not ignore it. Common sense reflects a judgment about the most prudent of a set of possible choices. If the evidence leads toward design, then common sense suggests an exploration of the lead in an effort to confirm or disconfirm it.

Therefore, at a basic level design detection is a matter of common sense, an intuitive determination we all make based on our everyday experiences with intelligently designed things. The intuitive, common sense approach is the primary method used by scientists such as archaeologists. No one expects an archaeologist to provide a rigorous "proof" that a pot or sculpture found in the ground is the result of an intelligent being. The archaeologist may not know who made the pot or why (and usually has no way to find out), but the fact of intelligent design is rarely in question. As in a similar concept of attaching intelligent agency to an event in law, we can rationally say ''res ipsa loquitur'', or "the thing speaks for itself". There is no principled reason to ignore the common sense approach when it comes to living biological systems. We may not know who made living systems or why, but the fact of intelligent design can be easily and intuitively grasped.
[[File:WilliamPaley3.jpg|thumb|230px|left|William Paley]]
Perhaps the best example of the common sense approach to design detection was that put forth by William Paley in his famous "watchmaker analogy". William Paley (July 1743 – May 25, 1805) was a British theologian and philosopher. He used the watchmaker analogy as an argument for the existence of God in his book ''Natural Theology''. Paley states his analogy:
<blockquote>
In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there... There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use... Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.

</blockquote>

Scientists who hold Darwinism dogmatically object to the common sense approach, not based on the fact of design, but on the metaphysical implications of considering true, intelligent design. Attempting to conflate the "what" of design with the "who" in biological systems is the tactic of those philosophically opposed to a supposed supernatural designer, i.e., those who fear a "divine foot in the door" of science. But such fear should not be tolerated by true scientists; design can be detected independent of any inquiry into the identity of the designer. Imagine archeology being rejected as science because there is absolutely no way to identify the designer of a clearly designed pot; such notions should be rejected by true scientists. Permitting the logical, common sense inference of intelligent design in the face of material evidence of design should be expected of honest scientists.

== Evidence for Intelligent Design in Nature ==

''See also:'' [[Irreducible complexity]] and [[Anthropic principle]]

[[Image:Phillip_johnson_arn.gif|thumbnail|150px|right|[[Phillip E. Johnson]], Jefferson E. Peyser Professor of Law, Emeritus]]
Virtually all scientists, including evolutionists,<ref>The term "evolutionist" is used in its "strong form" to describe those who hold and defend the position that all the variety of life is the result solely of naturalistic processes. Therefore, the term refers to those who rule out any intelligent causation for any aspect of life (if intelligence plays any role whatsoever, then whatever the theory, it is a form of intelligent design). While everyone is an "evolutionist" if "evolution" is defined in its weak form as simply "change over time" or "micro-evolution" such as finch beak variation, not everyone is an "evolutionist" if "evolution" is used, as herein, to mean "unguided, purposeless processes to produce new and beneficial changes in living systems". Evolutionists who oppose Intelligent Design believe that unintelligent processes of physics and chemistry can explain the creation of every novel and beneficial feature of the various species, including wings, eyes, and brains. Darwinism is the leading naturalistic evolutionary theory, holding that all life forms descended as modified forms of previous life forms in an unguided, unintelligent process, i.e., Darwin's "descent with modification".</ref> observe design in nature. Fossils exhibit design. Living body plans exhibit design. Micro-biological features such as DNA exhibit design. The evidentiary question is not a question of the '''''existence''''' of design in nature, but the '''''cause''''' of design in nature.

Only two causes are available to explain the design evident in nature: '''''unintelligent''''' causes and '''''intelligent causes'''''. '''Unintelligent causes''' include the natural actions of physics and chemistry, operating alone by natural laws in space and time. Unintelligent causes cannot produce true design, so Darwinists dismiss the evident design in nature as merely the "appearance" of design.

Intelligent design proponent [[Phillip E. Johnson]] illustrates the obstinancy of evolutionary scientists to recognize intelligent causation of design in nature when he wrote the following:
[[Image:Francis Crick.jpg|thumb|px130|left|[[Francis Crick]], co-discoverer of the structure of [[DNA]]]]
{{cquote|"One of the world's most famous scientists, probably the most famous living biologist, is Sir [[Francis Crick]], the British co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, a Nobel Prize winner...In his autobiography, Crick says very candidly biologists must remind themselves daily that what they study was not created, it evolved; it was not designed, it evolved. Why do they have to remind themselves of that? Because otherwise, the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through. What we discovered when I developed a working group of scientists, philosophers, et al., in the United States was that living organisms look as if they were designed and they look that way because that is exactly what they are."<ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/ntcreation.html</ref>}}

'''Intelligent causes''' include the actions of an intelligent agent (which may be unknown, such as in anonymous works of art, or in archeological finds) manipulating physics and chemistry to create something that physics and chemistry alone cannot. Only intelligent causes can produce true design.

The question is not, therefore, "is there evidence of design in nature?" Rather, the scientific question is, "Based on the evidence of design observed in nature, what causes best explain design?" Framed this way, potential explanations, or theories, are not limited by a predetermined bias, such as only unintelligent causes (e.g., Darwinism) or only intelligent causes (e.g., creationism). The question simply asks, "in accordance with the scientific method, what causes can be logically inferred from the evidence?"

With the proper question in mind, it is easy to see that virtually all the evidence used to support Darwinism is equally evidence in support of Intelligent Design. '''Cosmological''' evidence for design is described at '''[[Evidence for intelligent design in cosmology]]''' section. '''Biological''' evidence for intelligent design includes '''''general evidence''''' and '''''special evidence''''', and both are discussed at '''[[General and Special Evidence for Intelligent Design in Biology]]'''. For all material evidence, the evidentiary value can be determined by use of the '''[[Evidence Filter]]'''.

=== Anthropic principle ===

''See also:'' [[Anthropic principle]]

There is a strong body of evidence for a Designer that comes from the fine-tuning of the universal constants and the solar system.<ref name="creation.com">[http://creation.com/the-universe-is-finely-tuned-for-life The universe is finely tuned for life] by Jonathan Sarfati</ref>

The anthropic principle states that the reason the constants of nature appear so finely tuned to life, is that if it were otherwise, life such as ourselves would not have developed. Hence we should not be surprised that the laws of physics are enable life such as ourselves to exist.

Former [[Atheism|atheist]] Sir [[Fred Hoyle]] states, "commonsense interpretation of the facts is that a super-intelligence has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces in nature."<ref name="creation.com"/>

==Examples of Intelligent Design Theory Used in Science==
[[File:11943452 115b299206.jpg|thumbnail|275px|right|[[Forensic]] scientists use design detection when they consider observable evidence of an historic unrepeatable event such as a crime. ]]
Intelligent design detection is uncontroversial in many well-accepted scientific disciplines. In each of the scientific disciplines listed below, scientists evaluate the evidence objectively, that is, there is no pre-determined rule of interpretation that dictates that only ''unintelligent'' causes can be considered.

'''Forensic sciences''': [[Forensic]] scientists use design detection when they consider observable evidence of an historic unrepeatable event such as a crime. For example, a forensic investigator investigating a death uses scientific evidence to determine whether the death was caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., by accident), or by intelligent causes (i.e., murder).

'''Archeology''': Archaeologists are virtually dependent upon the science of design detection. Working with present-day evidence left from the past, archaeologists seek to determine whether artifacts were caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., clay) or intelligent causes (i.e., a clay pot).

'''Cryptanalysis''': Cryptanalysis is the scientific endeavor of code breaking. Code breakers examine the observable evidence of a string or pattern of characters to determine if it contains a message or if it is simply a string of random, meaningless characters.

'''Arson investigation''': Arson investigators observe evidence and attempt to explain the cause of a fire; was it caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., accidental ignition), or by intelligent causes (i.e., arson).

'''Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence''': The name says it all. These scientists are observing evidence in the form of radio signals to determine if the signals are the result of unintelligent causes (i.e., background radiation in space), or by intelligent causes (i.e., extraterrestrial intelligence).

Each of the above scientific disciplines utilize design detection to determine if the cause of observed evidence is due to unintelligent or intelligent agency. Usually, such as in the case of archaeologists observing clay pots, the detection and determination of design is intuitive and assumed without further justification. No rigorous analytical method is required of archaeologists to support a finding of design; nothing beyond the simple, rational recognition of what is consistent with the human experience of intelligent design is necessary.

== Intelligent design theorists and life on other planets ==

[[The Privileged Planet]] is an intelligent design theory documentary which argues that the earth contains a rare and finely-tuned array of factors which makes earth suitable for complex life.<ref>[http://www.privilegedplanet.com/ The Privileged Planet documentary website]</ref>

The proposal that first life came about through natural processes has not fared well in recent times. The prominent [[origin of life]] researcher [[Stanley Miller]] said the origin of life problem was more difficult than he or anyone else had imagined.<ref name="Why Abiogenesis is impossible">[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html Why Abiogenesis is impossible]</ref> Due to the necessity of an intelligent agent and the natural forces that a naturalistic origin of life faces, it is impossible for life to have arisen naturally (see: [http://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]).<ref name="Why Abiogenesis is impossible"/><ref>[http://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]</ref>

== Religious Implications of Origins Science ==
Any theory of origins unavoidably impacts religion.<ref>One should not make the mistake of equating "religion" with only traditional theistic religions like [[Christianity]], [[Judaism]], or [[Islam]]. As used herein the term is used as defined in the Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science: Religion: A broad range of theistic and non-theistic religions and religious belief systems.</ref> As stated in Article II.C of the '''Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science''':<ref name="intelligentdesignnetwork.org">http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Statement_of_Objectives_Feb_12_07.pdf</ref>
<blockquote>
Implications of scientific explanations of origins unavoidably impact religion, ethics, morality, government and politics. The implications of materialistic explanations (such as Darwinism) of origins support the central tenets of non-theistic religions,<ref>Non-theistic religions are religions and belief systems that presuppose that no God intervenes in the natural world and that material causes, such as unguided evolutionary change, are adequate to explain natural phenomena. Non-theistic religions include [[atheism]], [[Secular Humanism]], and [[Scientism]], as well as some forms of [[Buddhism]] and other eastern religions. By way of example, the Humanist Manifesto I sets forth the first two "affirmations" of religious humanism as "FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created; and, SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process." Thus, Darwinism supports the central tenets of a religious belief.</ref> while the implications of teleological<ref>Teleological: Exhibiting or relating to design or purpose, especially in nature. ''See'', Merriam-Webster Online</ref> explanations (such as Intelligent Design) support the central tenets of theistic religions. Both theistic and non-theistic religions and worldviews address questions of ethics, morality, government and politics.<ref>ibid, Article II.C</ref>
</blockquote>
[[Image:Atheism.jpg|thumb|right|195px|[[Paul-Henri Thiry]], Baron d'Holbach (1723 - 1789) was an early advocate of [[atheism]] in [[Europe]].]]
Therefore, it should not be surprising that most theists are sympathetic to intelligent design because the science of intelligent design supports the theology of theistic religions like [[Christianity]]. Likewise, it is not surprising that virtually all atheists are Darwinists because the science of Darwinism supports the theology of non-theistic religions such as religious humanism (having a theology of atheism). The simple fact is that worldviews and interpretations of evidence go hand in hand. If, for example, your world view prohibits explanations involving intelligent design, then you will reject intelligent design in spite of the evidence, not because of it.

For this reason, as stated in Article III.A. of the '''Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science''', if '''truth''' is the goal:
<blockquote>
Institutions of science should ignore religious and ethical implications of competing historical hypotheses and strive for '''objectivity'''<ref>Objective: Not influenced by personal bias or prejudice; based on facts. An objective position is one that is Secular, Neutral, and Non-ideological.</ref> in the conduct and teaching of origins science. Institutional objectivity may be achieved by encouraging healthy competition among scientists holding differing scientific views regarding origins, consistent with the scientific method.<ref>ibid, Article III.A</ref>
</blockquote>

This is because, as stated in Article II.B. of the '''Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science''':
<blockquote>
The adequacy of scientific explanations of origins depends on an analysis of competing possibilities. Origins explanations use a form of '''abductive'''<ref>Abduction, or abductive reasoning, is the process of reasoning to the best explanations. In other words, it is the reasoning process that starts from a set of facts and derives their most likely explanations. See, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning</ref> reasoning that produces competing Historical Hypotheses, that lead to an inference to the best current explanation rather than to an explanation that is logically compelled by experimental confirmation. Due to inherent limitations on the experimental validation of historical hypotheses, testing requires rigorous competition between alternative hypotheses so that their relative strengths and plausibilities may be compared. While competition among multiple hypotheses decreases subjectivity, it may nevertheless result in no adequate current explanation.<ref>ibid, Article II.B</ref>
</blockquote>

==Objections to Intelligent Design==
===Creationist Objections to Intelligent Design===
Many Biblical creationists and other theists object to Intelligent Design as failing to identify the alleged designer. This objection is expressed well by Georgia Purdom, Ph.D. of '''[[Answers in Genesis]]''' in an article entitled '''''Does the Identity of the Creator Really Matter?''''' Dr. Purdom sums up the major objection:

<blockquote>
However, the major problem with the ID movement is a divorce of the Creator from creation. The Creator and His creation cannot be separated; they reflect on each other.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/intelligent-design-movement</ref>
</blockquote>

The reader is encouraged to read Dr. Purdom's full article, as it fairly and thoroughly deals with the objection at hand. Building on the same thoughts, the Managing Director of [[Creation Ministries International]], Dr. [[Carl Wieland]], notes:

<blockquote>
The Intelligent Design Movement’s motivation appears to be the desire to challenge the blind acceptance of the materialistic, godless, naturalistic philosophy of Darwinian evolution. They confront many of the philosophical underpinnings of today’s evolutionary thinking. As a movement, they are unwilling to align themselves with biblical creationism.<ref name="CMI IDM">[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2560 CMI’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement]</ref>
</blockquote>

Referring to Intelligent Design as the Intelligent Design Movement (IDM), Weiland pinpoints the specific objection as:
<blockquote>
The IDM’s refusal to identify the Designer with the Biblical God, and in particular with the history in the Bible, means that:
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
Acceptance of ID thinking en masse could just as easily lead to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions.<ref>See the 2004 book by CMI speaker Gary Bates: Alien Intrusion: UFOs and the Evolution Connection. [footnote in original]</ref> In such instances, a Christian might well see that the metaphorical exorcism of one socio-philosophical demon would have achieved merely its replacement by others, possibly worse.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
There is no philosophical answer to their opponents’ logically-deduced charge that the Designer was monstrous and/or inept (‘look at all the horrible, cruel, even defective things in the living world’), since bringing up the Fall is deliberately, tactically excluded. (However, the Fall was a major event in history, that changed everything. The world we are looking at now is a world that has been corrupted by sin, not the original world that God designed). Thus, the movement’s success could very likely even be counterproductive, by laying the Biblical God open to ridicule and contempt in new ways.<ref name="CMI IDM" />
</blockquote>

====Response to Creationist Objections====
[[Image:Carl wieland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] ]]
Intelligent design theorists appreciate the criticisms of creationists such as Purdom and Wieland, and, in fact, most intelligent design theorists are creationists themselves. And while most intelligent design theorists would agree with Dr. Purdom that the Creator and his creation "reflect on each other," they would disagree that "the Creator and His creation cannot be separated." The "separation" is epistemological, that is, there is a distinction between ''how'' one can know anything about the creation versus the creator. Just as a painter can be separated from a painting, so that the painting is labelled "anonymous", and just as an archaeologist can infer a designer of a clay pot without knowing the designer's actual identity, the ''fact'' of a creator in nature can be determined scientifically, but the ''specific'' creator cannot.

Intelligent design theorists recognize that the scientific method places limits as to the kind of knowledge that can be determined scientifically. Intelligent design theorists hold that intelligent design is a logical inference based on observation of material evidence in nature. That is, intelligent design can be determined as a matter of science alone in full accord with the scientific method. But science can say little about who the designer is.

The intelligent design position is expressed well in an article by Casey Luskin entitled '''''Principled (not Rhetorical) Reasons Why Intelligent Design Doesn’t Identify the Designer'''''. Luskin states, referring to a law review article he co-authored:

<blockquote>
David DeWolf, John West and I also address this issue in our recent Montana Law Review article:
It is important to stress that the refusal of ID proponents to draw scientific conclusions about the nature or identity of the designer is principled rather than merely rhetorical. ID is primarily a historical science, meaning it uses principles of uniformitarianism to study present-day causes and then applies them to the historical record in order to infer the best explanation for the origin of the natural phenomena being studied. ID starts with observations from “uniform sensory experience” showing the effects of intelligence in the natural world. As Pandas explains, scientists have uniform sensory experience with intelligent causes (i.e. humans), thus making intelligence an appropriate explanatory cause within historical scientific fields. However, the “supernatural” cannot be observed, and thus historical scientists applying uniformitarian reasoning cannot appeal to the supernatural. If the intelligence responsible for life was supernatural, science could only infer the prior action of intelligence, but could not determine whether the intelligence was supernatural.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=4306, citing David K. DeWolf, John G. West, and Casey Luskin, “Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover,” 68 Montana Law Review 7, 30 (Spring, 2007) (internal citations removed).</ref>

</blockquote>
Further, it appears that Dr. Weiland's concern that "[a]cceptance of ID thinking en masse could just as easily lead to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions" is unfounded. Certainly some who are honestly convinced of true intelligent design might entertain "sci-fi notions," but the evidence supports the opposite—i.e., those convinced of design are more likely to entertain thoughts of a supernatural God. Like Aristotle of ancient Greece, those who reasonably and honestly are convinced of true design in nature are more likely to follow the pattern Dr. Pordum highlighted from Romans 1:18-20. That is, the creation speaks to a supernatural, infinite, eternal creator.

Take the example of former atheist Anthony Flew, as discussed by intelligent design theorist Phillip E. Johnson, in an article entitled '''''Intelligent Design in Biology: the Current Situation and Future Prospects'''''. First Johnson reiterates:

<blockquote>
The goal of the Intelligent Design Movement is to achieve an open philosophy of science that permits consideration of any explanations toward which the evidence may be pointing.<ref name="discovery.org">http://www.discovery.org/a/3914</ref>
</blockquote>

However, Johnson notes with respect to the practical effects of such an open philosophy:

<blockquote>
One early sign of the way the world is headed came in December 2004, when there was much comment in newspapers and internet discussion groups about famed atheist philosopher Anthony Flew. Flew had just announced that he had converted to philosophical theism (though not to Christianity or any other specific religion, at least as yet), on the basis of scientific discoveries and related reasoning, which had convinced him that there is an intelligent designer of the natural universe. Flew seems to have investigated the phenomenon of design in the natural world for reasons similar to my own. He wanted to decide for himself whether evidence and logic point in the direction of a creating intelligence, or whether God is nothing more than a subjective idea created by human imagination. Perhaps these questions about the reality of god are religious in nature, but they are important questions that deserve to be investigated dispassionately instead of being barred from consideration because powerful groups define “science” as committed a priori to naturalism.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>

Although as yet Flew does not adhere to Christianity or any other creedal faith, he has taken a giant step in that direction. In an article in the London Independent for December 27, 2004, an Oxford University theologian wrote: “What kind of God could it [i.e. Flew’s designer] refer to? One who created the universe–elementary particles, strong and weak forces, atoms and molecules, yet, for example, has no relation to the emergence of a clever humanity? Or could it be a God who was intelligent enough to create galaxies, and amazingly intricate systems like DNA, yet not intelligent enough to communicate with humankind? Although Flew does not believe in revelation, and may not feel that the Book of Genesis provides a useful account of creation, he does not seem to have quite this kind of minimalist God in mind either. In fact when pressed as to whether his ‘First Cause’ embraced omniscience, Flew admits that a First Cause, if there is one, has clearly produced everything that is going on, and this implies creation ‘in the beginning.’”<ref name="discovery.org"/>

</blockquote>

Intelligent design theorists leave the identity of the designer open as a matter of scientific discipline. Even though everyone, including creationists must rely on special revelation (i.e., the Bible) to know specifics about the designer, everyone can know the fact of design based on general revelation (i.e., nature).

===Methodological Naturalist Objections to Intelligent Design===
Many scientists object to intelligent design on the basis that intelligent design "is not science."

The validity of this objection depends on what is meant by the terms "intelligent design" and "science". If "science" is defined objectively (as in Websters dictionary: 3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena.<ref>http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/science</ref>) and "intelligent design" is defined as in this article, then intelligent design is clearly, without question "science", and the objection of methodological naturalists is overcome.

The term "methodological naturalism" describes a form of science in which science is assumed to be necessarily practiced as if naturalism were itself true (see also [[scientific materialism]]). Of course, "naturalism", which is a philosophy that holds there is no immaterial substance in the universe, i.e., all is matter alone, is an assumption-based philosophy. "Naturalism", like "materialism" as a philosophy holds that there is no supernatural in the universe, no spirit, no soul, and, of course, no God.

Methodological naturalists are scientists that, while perhaps not themselves being full-fledged naturalists (although growing numbers are), insist that science be practiced as if naturalism were true. If this method of practicing science is adhered to, then intelligent design cannot be science, because intelligent design posits the possibility of a ''supernatural'' designer.

One way to illustrate the objection is this: Consider two definitions of science:

<blockquote>
1. Science is the activity of seeking explanations for natural phenomena.

</blockquote>
<blockquote>
2. Science is the activity of seeking only natural (i.e., unintelligent) causes as explanations for natural phenomena.

</blockquote>
The first definition above is an objective, bias-free definition, for which intelligent design qualifies as science. However, the second definition above is one in which the objective definition has been qualified by the term "natural", which assumes there ''are'' natural, i.e., unintelligent, causes for natural phenomena.

The second definition is the definition that methodological naturalists insist be adopted as ''the'' definition for science. However, the "natural causes alone" criteria for gaining scientific knowledges is based upon an assumption that there ''is'' a natural cause for all natural phenomena. If intelligent design is true, scientists operating by the second definition above will never be able to come to the truth. The insistence on only "natural causes" imports a philosophical bias into the objective definition, which is then defended based not on '''''knowledge''''', but an '''''assumption'''''. Therefore, methodological naturalists "define out" of science intelligent design based on a philosophical assumption.

====Response to Naturalist Objection====

The simple response to methodological naturalism, which is the only principled basis for excluding intelligent design from science, is that methodological naturalism improperly and unnecessarily restricts the realm of science.

By any objective definition of science, including dictionary definitions, intelligent design is science. But the controversy begs a larger question. Historically, the practice of science can be considered in two broad categories.
[[Image:Francis_Bacon.jpg|thumbnail|150px|[[Francis Bacon]]]]
First there is the inductive method espoused by [[Francis Bacon]]. Bacon pioneered the modern notion that science should let "evidence lead the inquiry" and "general axioms ought to be the end, not the beginning, of the scientific process."<ref>See, Cornelius G. Hunter, ''Science's Blind Spot, the Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism, (Brazos Press, 2007), p. 15.</ref> Bacon specifically formulated his scientific method to ensure that religious speculation (including speculation about naturalism) was excluded from the scientific process. Thus, Bacon's scientific method proceeded based on observations of nature, and logical inferences derived from those observations.

Second, there is the deductive method espoused by René Descartes. Descartes argued that science needed mechanical, or naturalistic, descriptions that could explain, rather than merely label, the effects.<ref>See, Hunter, p. 17.</ref> According to Cornelius Hunter, in his book ''Science's Blind Spot, the Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism,'' Descartes proposed a method of science in which "What science needed were naturalistic descriptions, even if they were not known to be true explanations. Thus, Cartesian explanations were hypothetical; Descartes argued that having a plausible yet incorrect description was better than no description at all."

Therefore, whether or not intelligent design is "science" depends on what approach one takes to science. If one takes the Baconian approach, letting the evidence lead the inquiry without presuppositions, intelligent design is science. Moreover, if one takes the Cartesian approach, intelligent design of biological systems can still be science; it depends on what hypothetical constraints are put upon scientific inquiry. Methodological naturalists place the "natural causes only" constraint on all scientific inquiry, and, therefore, define out of science the notion of any non-natural designer.

Intelligent design theorists maintain that the "natural causes only" constraint might be correct for operational science, but for historical sciences in which one is attempting to reconstruct a historical narrative based on present-day evidence, such a constraint does not make sense. For one thing, intelligent design theorists maintain that there is a difference between inductive and/or deductive sciences (each of which can be used in experimental sciences), and the "historical sciences". Intelligent design is scientific in both inductive and historical sciences (and deductive, without limiting biases), but can have its greatest value as a historical science.

The broad categories of "experimental sciences" and "historical sciences" ask different kinds of questions and use different kinds of methods. The inductive sciences, on the one hand, ask questions about how the natural world generally operates. The historical sciences, on the other hand, ask different kinds of questions. Rather than trying to understand how the natural world operates, the historical sciences seek to understand how things came to be. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer develops this line of thought fully in an article entitled ''Science and the Laws of Nature''.

The distinction between experimental and historical sciences is not an ID-inspired idea. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) makes the same distinction to defend the historical nature of evolution. In its publication ''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'', the NAS responds to the question, "How can evolution be scientific when no one was there to see it happen?":

<blockquote>
This question reflects a narrow view of how science works. Things in science can be studied even if they cannot be directly observed or experimented on. Archaeologists study past cultures by examining the artifacts those cultures left behind. . . . Something that happened in the past is thus not "off limits" for scientific study. Hypotheses can be made about such phenomena, and these hypotheses can be tested and can lead to solid conclusions.<ref>''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'' (Washington DC, National Academy Press, 1998), p. 55</ref>
</blockquote>

With respect to hypothesis testing, see, Carol Cleland, '''''Historical Science, Experimental Science and the Scientific Method''''', (''Geology'', November 2001, Vol. 29, No. 11, 987-990).

The fact is that historical sciences operate by different methods, including different methods of testing, than do experimental sciences. Historical sciences attempt to construct a historical narrative to explain current observed phenomena. The only way to "test" historical narratives is by comparing with competing historical narratives to see which one more closely aligns with the observed phenomena.

Intelligent design, therefore, is not only science, but as a competing historical narrative, it is a valuable scientific challenge to the naturalistic historical narrative of Darwinism. Without it, Darwinism ceases being science, and becomes an unchallengeable dogma.

== History of Intelligent Design ==
[[File:Aristotle.jpg|thumb|150px|right|[[Aristotle]] ]]
In many respects the history of intelligent design corresponds to the history of science in general; since the days of [[Aristotle]] most scientists have assumed design based on the clear evidence at hand. Moreover, the history of the modern intelligent design movement must be seen in the context of the ages-old tension between materialistic science and non-materialistic science. For a timeline directed specifically to the history of intelligent design and the creation - evolution controversy, see the '''IDEA Center's''' ''"Primer: History of intelligent design and the creation - evolution controversy".'' <ref>http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1119</ref>

Plato and Aristotle both argued that nature is ''teleological'', a term that comes from the Greek ''telos'' meaning "directed by goal or purpose". In other words, the evidence of nature leads logically to the idea that behind the purely natural is some kind of rational, non-natural order, something Plato referred to as "Form" and which Aristotle referred to as "Idea". Both were led to their conclusions by the commonsense notion that if the world really did consist of chance configurations of atoms, then knowledge would be impossible. (See Nancy Pearcey, ''Total Truth'', Appendix 3, p. 390.)<ref>Nancy R. Pearcey, ''Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity'' (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004)(http://www.amazon.com/Total-Truth-Liberating-Christianity-Captivity/dp/1581347464/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195005366&sr=1-1)</ref>

[[Image:Pearcey.jpg|thumb|150px|left|Nancy Pearcey]]
Modern intelligent design theory is simply a response to the resurgence of dominant materialistic thought, primarily as expressed by institutions of science such as universities and various academies of science. As '''Nancy Pearcey''' states: "By tracing the debate over Darwinism all the way back to [[Epicurus]] (a Greek materialist) we can place the theory in a much larger context. Darwinism was not entirely new, invented out of whole cloth." Likewise, the modern intelligent design movement can be placed in a larger context as a challenge to modern materialistic thought as enforced in modern science.

For more indepth study of the history of intelligent design, see '''William Dembski's''' work entitled ''Intelligent Design''.<ref>http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.08.Encyc_of_Relig.htm</ref> In particular, Dembski's bibliography and comments are reproduced here:

Bibliography
<blockquote>

Beckwith, Francis J. Law, Darwinism, and Public Education: The Establishment Clause and the Challenge of Intelligent Design. Lanham, Md., 2003. 

Behe, Michael J. Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York, 1996. 

Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design. New York, 1986. 

Dembski, William A. No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence. Lanham, Md., 2002. 

Forrest, Barbara. “The Wedge at Work: How Intelligent Design Creationism Is Wedging Its Way into the Cultural and Academic Mainstream.” In Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives, edited by Robert T. Pennock, pp. 5–53, Cambridge, Mass., 2001. 

Giberson, Karl W. and Donald A. Yerxa. Species of Origins: America’s Search for a Creation Story. Lanham, Md., 2002. 

Hunter, Cornelius G. Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Grand Rapids, Mich., 2002. 

Manson, Neil A., ed. God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science. London, 2003. 

Miller, Kenneth R. Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution. San Francisco, 1999. 

Rea, Michael C. World without Design: The Ontological Consequences of Naturalism. Oxford, 2002. 

Witham, Larry. By Design: Science and the Search for God. San Francisco, 2003. 

Woodward, Thomas. Doubts about Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design. Grand Rapids, Mich., 2003. 
</blockquote>

Bibliographic Essay

<blockquote>[[Larry Witham]] provides the best overview of intelligent design, even-handedly treating its scientific, cultural, and religious dimensions. As a journalist, Witham has personally interviewed all the main players in the debate over intelligent design and allows them to tell their story. For intelligent design’s place in the science and religion dialogue, see Giberson and Yerxa. For histories of the intelligent design movement, see Woodward (a supporter) and Forrest (a critic). See Behe and Dembski to overview intelligent design’s scientific research program. For a critique of that program, see Miller. For an impassioned defense of Darwinism against any form of teleology or design, see Dawkins. Manson’s anthology situates intelligent design within broader discussions about teleology. Rea probes intelligent design’s metaphysical underpinnings. Hunter provides an interesting analysis of how intelligent design and Darwinism play off the problem of evil. Beckwith examines whether intelligent design is inherently religious and thus, on account of church-state separation, must be barred from public school science curricula.

</blockquote>

== Global intelligence design movement ==

''See also:'' [[Global intelligent design movement]]

''Evolution News and Views'' reported concerning the intelligent design movement:
{{cquote|Along with the absurd stereotype that support for ID is limited to right-wing fundamentalist Christians … there’s also the Darwinist agitprop point that advocates of the theory are rare outside the United States. Hardly! An unacknowledged strength of the ID movement is its international character.

Asia is an up-and-coming ID hot spot, as ENV has reported. See here for Signature in the Cell and Explore Evolution [links omitted for Discoveroid books] in their recent and handsome Korean editions.

Europe and Asia aside, how about Brazil? From South America’s most populous nation, accounting for half the continent’s total population, comes news of the First Brazilian Intelligent Design Congress, scheduled for November 14–16 this year at [details of the event].<ref>[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/intelligent_des_20090211.html Intelligent Design's Secret Weapon: The World] by David Klinghoffer October 3, 2014 11:53 AM</ref>}}

==Resources==
=== Quick Start ===
For a quick, concise overview of what intelligent design is all about, link to the following relatively short articles:

'''''Intelligent Design: The Scientific Alternative to Evolution'''''.<ref>http://idnetohio.cinti.net/media/NCBQ3_3HarrisCalvert.pdf</ref> Written by William S. Harris and John H. Calvert (of '''Intelligent Design Network, Inc.'''),<ref name="ReferenceA">http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/</ref> this article is a one-stop mini-compendium on what intelligent design is, what it claims, and why it's important.

'''''The Evolution Controversy: Understanding the Basic Issues in the Debate Between Biological Evolution and Intelligent Design'''''. By Jody F. Sjogren, Robert P. Lattimer, and Douglas D. Rudy, and presented by Science Excellence for all Ohioans (SEAO).<ref>http://www.sciohio.org/start.htm</ref> Read and understand this and you will, as the title says, understand the basic issues.

'''''Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories.'''''<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC - Scientific Research and Scholarship - Science - MainPage&id=2177</ref> By Stephen C. Meyer of the Center for Science & Culture,<ref name="http://www.discovery.org/csc">http://www.discovery.org/csc/</ref> this article first appeared in the peer reviewed Proceeding of the Biological Society of Washington, August 20, 2005. Dr. Meyer argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms. He proposes intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.

===Web Based Resources===
====The Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture====
'''The Center for Science and Culture'''<ref name="http://www.discovery.org/csc"/> is a '''[[Discovery Institute]]''' program that encourages schools to improve science education by teaching students more fully about the theory of evolution, as well as supporting the work of scholars who challenge various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory and scholars who are working on the scientific theory known as intelligent design.

In addition to scientific research and scholarship, the Center's '''Evolution News and Views''' blog<ref>http://www.evolutionnews.org/</ref> presents analysis of that relevant news coverage, as well as original reporting that accurately delivers information about the current state of the debate over Darwinian evolution.

A related website, '''intelligentdesign.org'''<ref>http://www.intelligentdesign.org/</ref> provides up-to-date information and learning resources.

====Access Research Network====
The '''[[Access Research Network]] (ARN)'''<ref name="arn.org">http://www.arn.org/</ref> is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing accessible information on science, technology and society.

'''ARN's''' articles and publications cover a host of issues which focus on such topics as intelligent design theory, genetic engineering, euthanasia, computer technology, environmental issues, creation/evolution, fetal tissue research and medical issues. ARN provides information needed to orient one's self in today's scientific and technological world in order to make informed decisions.

====The Intelligent Design Network====
'''Intelligent Design Network, Inc.'''<ref name="ReferenceA"/> is a nonprofit organization that seeks institutional objectivity in origins science. Objectivity results from the use of the [[scientific method]] without philosophic or religious assumptions in seeking answers to the question: Where do we come from?

The Intelligent Design Network produced a Statement of Objectives <ref name="intelligentdesignnetwork.org"/> regarding origins science. The Statement acknowledges that explanations of the origin of the universe and of life and its diversity are scientifically controversial. Further, due to its controversial nature, Origins Science requires a scientific enterprise guided by '''scientific objectivity'' rather than a preconceived view of origins, whether Materialistic (e.g., Darwinism) or Teleological (e.g., creationism). For this reason, according to the Statement, government and public education institutions supporting Origins Science should strive for objectivity as they inform the public about the state of our scientific knowledge regarding origins.

====The Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center====

The '''Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center'''<ref>http://www.ideacenter.org/</ref> is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting intelligent design theory and fostering good - spirited discussion and a better understanding over intelligent design theory and the creation - evolution issue among students, educators, churches, and anyone else interested. The Center's primary focus is to help students form "IDEA Clubs" on university and high school campuses.

====ID the Future====
Intelligent Design's "Super Blog", '''ID the Future'''<ref>http://www.idthefuture.com/</ref> offers podcasts as part of its mission of exploring the issues central to evolution and intelligent design (ID). IDTF provides listeners with the most current news and views on evolution and ID through brief interviews with key scientists and scholars developing the theory of ID, as well as insightful commentary from '''Discovery Institute''' senior fellows and staff on the scientific, educational and legal aspects of the debate.

====Uncommon Descent====
The intelligent design weblog of [[William Dembski]], Denyse O'Leary, and friends, '''Uncommon Descent'''<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/</ref> holds that...
Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins. At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution—an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project.

====The Post-Darwinist====
Toronto-based '''Denyse O'Leary's''' blog,<ref>http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/</ref> covering the intelligent design movement from a journalist/author's perspective.

===Books, Tapes, DVD's===

====Discovery Institute====
The '''Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture''' "Essential Readings" list<ref>http://www.discovery.org/csc/essentialReadings.php</ref> includes links to books and articles by leading intelligent design proponents.

====Access Research Network====
Books available from '''Access Research Network's'''<ref name="arn.org"/> book catalog<ref name="astore.amazon.com">http://astore.amazon.com/a0ed97-20</ref> and videos/tapes (including DVD's)<ref name="astore.amazon.com"/><ref>[http://www.arn.org/origins-101.html ARN Videos]</ref> include the latest information on the subject of intelligent design.

==See also==

*[[Intelligent design movement]]
*[[Atheism and reason]]
*[[Irreligion and superstition]]
*[[Creation Science]]

== External links ==
*[http://www.intelligentdesign.org/ IntelligentDesign.org]

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Intelligent Design| ]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Atheism and the origin of the universe

2016-08-31T13:11:08Z

PeterHockey: Added a bit

[[Image:Bvfgdtre.jpg|right|thumbnail|right|200px|Atheist [[Stephen Hawking]] asserted: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing".<ref>[http://creation.com/stephen-hawking-god Hawking atheopathy] by Jonathan Sarfati</ref>]]
Although many [[Atheism|atheists]] indicate that they do not know how the universe came into being, some prominent atheists claim that the universe came into existence from nothing.<ref>[http://canadafreepress.com/article/atheists-respond-to-my-challenge-to-put-up-or-shut-up/ Atheists Respond to my Challenge to Put Up or Shut Up!] by Dr. Don Boys</ref><ref>[https://dailyevidence.wordpress.com/2011/07/31/%E2%80%9Catheists-do-not-claim-that-nothing-created-everything-%E2%80%9D/ “Atheists do not claim that nothing created everything.”]</ref> See also: [[Atheism and beliefs]] and [[Atheist worldview]]

[[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote about atheist [[Stephen Hawking]] claiming the universe came from nothing: "However, [http://creation.com/loving-god-with-all-your-mind-logic-and-creation logic] doesn’t seem to be his strong point; ‘self-creation’ is self-contradictory. Something can do something — including create—only if it exists; something not yet existing has no power to do anything, including create itself."<ref>[http://creation.com/stephen-hawking-god Hawking atheopathy] by Jonathan Sarfati</ref>

The [[steady state theory]], which posited an eternal universe, was formerly advocated by atheist cosmologists, but it has fallen out of disfavor.

== Prominent atheists claiming the universe came from nothing ==
[[File:Victor J. Stenger.jpg|thumbnail|left|200px|[[Victor J. Stenger]] ]]

''See also:'' [[Atheism and the supernatural]]

Atheist Stephen Hawking claims: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing".<ref>[http://creation.com/stephen-hawking-god Hawking atheopathy] by Jonathan Sarfati</ref> Hawking further claims that the universe “popped into existence without violating the known laws of Nature".<ref>[http://canadafreepress.com/article/atheists-respond-to-my-challenge-to-put-up-or-shut-up/ Atheists Respond to my Challenge to Put Up or Shut Up!] by Dr. Don Boys</ref>

Atheist [[Victor J. Stenger]] wrote: "Assuming the universe came from nothing, it is empty to begin with…".<ref>[https://dailyevidence.wordpress.com/2011/07/31/%E2%80%9Catheists-do-not-claim-that-nothing-created-everything-%E2%80%9D/ “Atheists do not claim that nothing created everything.”]</ref>

The atheist philosopher Quinton Smith indicated “the most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing."<ref>[http://canadafreepress.com/article/atheists-respond-to-my-challenge-to-put-up-or-shut-up/ Atheists Respond to my Challenge to Put Up or Shut Up!] by Dr. Don Boys</ref>

Wayne Jackson wrote at the ''Christian Courier'' regarding Victor J. Stenger's hypothesis that the universe came from nothing:
{{Cquote|First, in defiance of one of the most elementary principles of logic, the atheist suggests that “something” (e.g., the Universe) came from “nothing;” that zero plus zero equals something greater than zero.

Victor Stenger, an atheistic professor at the University of Hawaii, admits that “everyday experience and common sense” supports the concept that something cannot come from nothing. Nevertheless, he suggests that “common sense is often wrong, and our normal experiences are but a tiny fraction of reality” (26-27). If you want to be an atheist, you must put your “common sense” on the shelf!<ref>[https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/687-folly-of-atheism-the The Folly of Atheism] by Wayne Jackson</ref>}}

== The 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics and the universe having a beginning ==

According to Ohio State University professor Patrick Woodward, the [[First Law of Thermodynamics]] "simply states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed (conservation of energy)."<ref>[https://chemistry.osu.edu/~woodward/ch121/ch5_law.htm 1st Law of Thermodynamics], Ohio State University, Professor Pat Woodward (teaches for the Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry [https://chemistry.osu.edu/faculty/woodward])</ref>

The [[Christian apologetics]] website ''Why believe in God?'' declares about the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]]:
{{cquote|The second law of thermodynamics, or the law of increased [[entropy]], says that over time, everything breaks down and tends towards disorder - entropy! Entropy is the amount of UNusable energy in any systems; that system could be the earth's environment or the universe itself. The more entropy there is, the more disorganisation and chaos.

Therefore, if no outside force is adding energy to an isolated system to help renew it, it will eventually burn out (heat death). This can be applied to a sun as well as a cup of tea - left to themselves, both will grow cold. You can heat up a cold tea, you cannot heat up a cold sun. NOTE: when a hot tea in an air tight room goes cold (loses all it's energy) not only do we NOT expect the process to reverse by natural causes (ie. the tea will get hot again), but both room temp and tea temp will be equal. Keep that in mind as you read the next paragraph.

Look at it like this, because the energy in the universe is finite and no new energy is being added to it (1st law), and because the energy is being used up (2nd law), the universe cannot be infinite. If our universe was infinite but was using up a finite supply of energy, it would have suffered 'heat death' a long time ago! If the universe was infinite all radioactive atoms would have decayed and the universe would be the same temperature with no hot spots, no bright burning stars. Since this is not true, the universe must have begun a finite time ago.<ref>[http://www.whybelieveingod.net/istheuniverseinfinite.htm Is the Universe Infinite? Past beliefs and implications], Why believe in God? website</ref>}}

Thus, the First Law of Thermodynamics and the Second Law of Thermodynamics point to the [[universe]] having a beginning.<ref>
*[http://www.creationencounter.com/space/lawsofscience.php CAN LAWS OF SCIENCE EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE?]
*[http://cavern.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/universeorigin.htm Evidence for the Supernatural Creation of the Universe] by Patrick R. Briney, Ph.D.
*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=3704 The Laws of Thermodynamics Don't Apply to the Universe!] by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.
*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2106 God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective] by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.
*[http://creation.com/if-god-created-the-universe-then-who-created-god If God created the universe, then who created God?] by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.
*[http://creation.com/eternal-universe Has the universe always existed?]</ref>

== Theistic implications of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics ==

In the articles below, [[Theism|theists]] point out that the First Law of Thermodynamics and the Second Law of Thermodynamics point to the universe having a divine origin:

*[http://www.creationencounter.com/space/lawsofscience.php Can the laws of science explain the origin of the universe?]

*[http://cavern.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/universeorigin.htm Evidence for the Supernatural Creation of the Universe] by Patrick R. Briney, Ph.D.

*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=3704 The Laws of Thermodynamics Don't Apply to the Universe!] by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2106 God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective] by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

*[http://creation.com/if-god-created-the-universe-then-who-created-god If God created the universe, then who created God?] by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.

*[http://creation.com/eternal-universe Has the universe always existed?]

== Abrahamic religions, the eternal nature of God and a common atheist misunderstanding ==
[[File:Safarti3.jpg|alt=evolutionary theory opponent|thumb|260px|right|[[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote about the eternal nature of God and the question "If God created the universe, then who created God?": "A number of sceptics ask this question. But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question ‘Who created God?’ is illogical, just like ‘To whom is the bachelor married?’".<ref>[http://creation.com/if-god-created-the-universe-then-who-created-god If God created the universe, then who created God?] by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.</ref>]]
The [[Abraham]]ic religions of [[Christianity]], [[Judaism]] and [[Islam]] maintain that [[God]], who is eternal, supernaturally created the universe. The physicist Gordon Van Whyden wrote in his book ''Thermodynamics'': "The author has found that the 2nd law tends to increase his conviction that there is a creator who has the answer for the future destiny of man and the universe."<ref>[http://www.creationencounter.com/space/lawsofscience.php CAN LAWS OF SCIENCE EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE?]</ref>

A classic [[Arguments for the existence of God|argument for the existence of God]] is the [[cosmological argument]]. According to the cosmological argument, every event in our [[universe]] necessarily has a cause. However, it is unsatisfactory that there should be an unending chain of causes going back. Therefore, there necessarily must be a cause ''distinct'' from the universe as we know it which is capable of causing all things and is itself uncaused. Atheism denies that that [[First Cause|first cause]] is God. This version of the argument has a flaw in that it assumes all events have a cause, when this is known not to be true.

The [[Arguments for the existence of God#Kalam cosmological argument|Kalam cosmological argument]] is a modern formulation of the cosmological argument which rooted in the Ilm al-Kalam heritage within medieval Islamic scholasticism.

Christians point out that the question "Who created God", which is often posed by atheists, is an illogical question.<ref>[http://creation.com/who-created-god Who created God] by Don Batten</ref><ref>[http://creation.com/if-god-created-the-universe-then-who-created-god If God created the universe, then who created God?] by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.</ref><ref>[http://www.compellingtruth.org/who-created-God.html Who created God]</ref>

Jonathan Sarfati wrote about the eternal nature of God and the question "If God created the universe, then who created God?": "A number of sceptics ask this question. But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question ‘Who created God?’ is illogical, just like ‘To whom is the bachelor married?’".<ref>[http://creation.com/if-god-created-the-universe-then-who-created-god If God created the universe, then who created God?] by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.</ref>

Many atheists do not have a firm understanding of [[theology]], so they may be unaware of the eternal nature of God which is a part of Christian, Jewish and Islamic theology.

== Lawrence Kraus, the origin of the universe and the fallacy of equivocation ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and equivocation]]

David Darling in the science magazine New Scientists wrote:
{{Cquote|What is a big deal - the biggest deal of all - is how you get something out of nothing! Don't let the cosmologists try to kid you on this one. They have not got a clue either... 'In the beginning,' they will say, 'there was nothing - no time, space, matter or energy. Then there was a [[Quantum mechanics|quantum]] fluctuation from which...' Whoa! Stop right there. You see what I mean? First there is nothing, then there is something. And the cosmologists try to bridge the two with a quantum flutter... Then they are away and before you know it, they have pulled a hundred billion galaxies out of their quantum hats.<ref>[http://www.creationencounter.com/space/lawsofscience.php CAN LAWS OF SCIENCE EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE?]</ref>}}
[[File:Lawrence Krauss at American Atheists conference.jpg|left|thumbnail|200px|right|Atheist [[Lawrence Krauss]] speaking at an [[American Atheists]] conference. ]]
The [[CARM|Christian Apologetics and Research Ministy]] (CARM) points out that the atheist [[Lawrence Krauss]] uses the [[logical fallacy]] of [[equivocation]] in his failed attempt to explain the origin of the universe.

CARM declares:
{{cquote|But I have a bone to pick with Dr. Krauss about his latest book, ''A Universe from Nothing'', which has the subtitle ''Why there is something rather than nothing?'' Those having taken an intro to philosophy class will recognize that Krauss’ subtitle is a rendition of the most basic philosophical question of existence, which has been attributed to truth seekers such as Gottfried Leibniz who asked, “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?”....

You would think that by the title of Krauss’ book he answers the question that Leibniz posed, but he doesn’t. Instead, he redefines what ‘nothing’ is. ‘Nothing’ to Dr. Krauss would be empty space or the quantum vacuum....

Dictionary.com defines ‘nothing’ as:

1. no thing; not anything; naught: to say nothing.
2. no part, share, or trace (usually followed by of ): The house showed nothing of its former magnificence.
3. something that is nonexistent.
4. nonexistence; nothingness: The sound faded to nothing.

But, I think the best definition of ‘nothing’ is Aristotle’s: “Nothing is what rocks dream about.”

Why does Krauss attempt to redefine ‘nothing’? Because Krauss is an atheist and a fairly acerbic one at that. He not only doesn’t believe in God but also doesn’t like God. Here is the problem Krauss faces: If nothing is really nothing and we have something (the universe) from a real nothing, then it points to the universe having a beginning. And as Stephen Hawking has observed, “Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention.”

The problem is that empty space and/or the quantum vacuum aren’t nothing; they’re something. So Krauss’ book does absolutely ‘nothing’ to answer Leibniz’s question and leaves his readers no better off than they were before where the issue of the origin of the universe is concerned.

All the scientific evidence points to the universe exploding out of true nothingness, but atheists like Krauss hate this truth.<ref>[https://carm.org/lawrence-krauss-atheist-definition-of-nothing Lawrence Krauss and the Atheist Definition of Nothing], by Robin Schumacher, edited by Matt Slick</ref>}}

The philosopher of science and physicist David Albert, in a review for ''The New York Times'', wrote:
{{cquote|He complains that “some philosophers and many theologians define and redefine ‘nothing’ as not being any of the versions of nothing that scientists currently describe,” and that “now, I am told by religious critics that I cannot refer to empty space as ‘nothing,’ but rather as a ‘quantum vacuum,’ to distinguish it from the philosopher’s or theologian’s idealized ‘nothing,’ ” and he does a good deal of railing about “the intellectual bankruptcy of much of theology and some of modern philosophy.” But all there is to say about this, as far as I can see, is that Krauss is dead wrong and his religious and philosophical critics are absolutely right. Who cares what we would or would not have made a peep about a hundred years ago? We were wrong a hundred years ago. We know more now. And if what we formerly took for nothing turns out, on closer examination, to have the makings of protons and neutrons and tables and chairs and planets and solar systems and galaxies and universes in it, then it wasn’t nothing, and it couldn’t have been nothing, in the first place. And the history of science — if we understand it correctly — gives us no hint of how it might be possible to imagine otherwise.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=0 On the Origin of Everything: ‘A Universe From Nothing],’ by Lawrence M. Krauss By DAVID ALBERT, ''The New York Times'', MARCH 23, 2012</ref>}}

=== Richard Dawkins' endorsement of Krauss' book ''A Universe from Nothing''===

The [[New Atheism|new atheist]] and agnostic [[Richard Dawkins]] wrote about Krauss' book ''A Universe from Nothing'', "The title means exactly what it says. And what is says is devastating."<ref>[http://www.bethinking.org/is-there-a-creator/a-universe-from-someone-against-lawrence-krauss A Universe From Someone: Against Lawrence Krauss] by Peter S. Williams</ref>

Dawkins wrote about the origin of the universe, “The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice.<ref>[http://canadafreepress.com/article/atheists-respond-to-my-challenge-to-put-up-or-shut-up/ Atheists Respond to my Challenge to Put Up or Shut Up!] by Dr. Don Boys</ref><ref>[http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/richarddaw363339.html Richard Dawkins quote]</ref>

== Christian evangelist and author Ray Comfort on nothing creating everything ==
[[File:Ray Comfort Promo Picture.jpg|right|thumbnail|200px|[[Ray Comfort]] ]]
In his book ''Nothing Created Everything'', Christian evangelist [[Ray Comfort]] wrote:
{{Cquote|AS WE HAVE seen, man cannot create a grain of sand from nothing, let alone a living, breathing entity. He can manipulate, engineer, influence, or maneuver but he cannot create a green pea, sheep, chickens, a pig, a tree, or even a flea, from nothing. Again, we know that with all of his genius, man cannot create anything from nothing. So how intellectually preposterous is it to actually believe that in the beginning nothing created everything. Atheism is off the charts in human folly. By contrast, the [[Flat Earth|flat-earther]] is a real genius.<ref>''Nothing Created Everything: The Scientific Impossibility of Atheistic Evolution'' by Ray Comfort, page 43</ref>}}

In response to Richard Dawkins writing that the universe evolved literally out of nothing, [[Ray Comfort]] wrote:
{{Cquote|Anyone who tries to actually justify that nothing created everything has to be insane. This is a scientific impossibility. There’s no way to say it kindly, but such thoughts show that the atheist doesn’t think, and proves the Bible right when it says that the fool has said in his heart that there is no God.”<ref>[http://www.equip.org/bookstore/nothing-created-everything-the-scientific-impossibility-of-atheistic-evolution/ Nothing Created Everything]</ref>}}

== The agnostic Ron Rosenbaum on atheism and the origin of the universe ==

The agnostic Ron Rosenbaum wrote in ''Slate'' about atheism and the origin of the universe:
{{Cquote|Atheists display a credulous and childlike faith, worship a certainty as yet unsupported by evidence—the certainty that they can or will be able to explain how and why the universe came into existence. (And some of them can behave as intolerantly to heretics who deviate from their unproven orthodoxy as the most unbending religious Inquisitor.)

Faced with the fundamental question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" atheists have faith that science will tell us eventually. Most seem never to consider that it may well be a philosophic, logical impossibility for something to create itself from nothing.<ref>[http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_spectator/2010/06/an_agnostic_manifesto.html An Agnostic Manifesto] by Ron Rosenbaum, ''Slate''</ref>}}

== See also ==

*[[Cosmological argument]]

*[[Multiverse]]

*[[Anthropic principle]]

== External links ==

*[https://www.icr.org/article/6901 A Universe from Nothing?] by Jake Hebert, Ph.D.
*[http://www.bethinking.org/is-there-a-creator/a-universe-from-someone-against-lawrence-krauss A Universe From Someone: Against Lawrence Krauss] by Peter S. Williams

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Atheism]]
[[Category:Cosmology]]

Cosmology

2016-08-31T13:04:41Z

PeterHockey: Some changes, rephrasing

'''Cosmology''' is the study of the structure and formation of the [[universe]].

Ancient and [[medieval]] cosmologists were common, usually oriented around a world view of a stationary, [[flat earth]] as the center of the universe. [[Aristarchus]] understood that the [[earth]] was spherical and circled the [[sun]]. With the increasing sophistication of observing techniques and equipment, a more modern understanding of the universe emerged.

Much of modern cosmology is [[atheism|atheistic]],<ref>http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm</ref> which rejects [[God]] as explanations for the existence of the universe. Instead it uses theories such as [[Counterexamples to Relativity|relativity]] and the [[Big Bang theory]] based on the recession of [[galaxies]] shown by [[Red Shift]].[[atheism|Atheistic]] cosmology occurs in a [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth|time frame]] which predates that suggested by creation scientists of approximately 6000 years. Some [[Secular Science|secular scientists]] also advocate the [[Steady state theory]], though this is is very small in comparison. Some also suggest a cyclic universe of expansion followed by contraction, repeating to infinity.

People are increasingly embracing the [[logic]] of [[creation science]] enabling them to distinguish real science from atheistic secular junk science.

==See also==
*[[Relativistic cosmology]]
* [[Tycho Brahe]]
*[[Moshe Carmeli]]
* {{hs|Nicolaus|Copernicus}}
*[[John Hartnett]]
* {{sh|Galileo|Galilei}}
* {{hs|Johannes|Kepler}}
* {{hs|Isaac|Newton}}
* [[Multiverse theory]]

==Sources==

<references/>

The New American Desk Encyclopedia, Penguin Group, 1989

[[Category:Cosmology| ]]

Evolution and science

2016-08-30T15:08:36Z

PeterHockey: Fixed typo

'''Evolution and science''' conflict with each other. [[Evolution]] is clearly [[atheism|atheistic]],<ref>http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm</ref> [[liberal]] pseudo or [[junk science]] which is easily disproven by the numerous [[Counterexamples to Evolution|counterexamples to evolution]] that exist.

Creationists also disagree with evolution as it requires a time frame of billion/millions of years. This is incompatible with their time frame for creation of approximately 6000 years.

Intelligent people who can distinguish real [[science]] from atheistic secular junk science are increasingly embracing the rigid [[logic]] of [[creation science]].

==See Also==
[[Evolution and creation]]
==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

Evolution and science

2016-08-30T15:07:04Z

PeterHockey: More detail, see Also section

Brexit

2016-08-30T12:26:10Z

PeterHockey: Updated article

'''Brexit''' is a campaign slogan for 'Britain's Exit' from the [[European Union]]. The British people became the first nation to vote on a referendum whether or not to remain in membership to the EU on June 23, 2016. The historic vote shocked the world as the Leave campaign won by a 52-48% margin. Prime Minister [[David Cameron]] campaigned to remain in the EU and with the results public, resigned his position. Former London Mayor [[Boris Johnson]] was a leader of the Leave camp.

Polling indicated a tight race, with 44% preferring to stay (anti-Brexit) and 42% supporting leaving the EU (Brexit), as of April 17, 2016.<ref>https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polling/</ref> Two weeks after Obama gave his support to Cameron and chided Britain to stay in the EU, a survey says Brexit gained 3% who want out.<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-poll-idUSKCN0XP0PO? Obama fails to swing Britain behind EU as 'Out' takes poll lead, Reuters, April 28, 2016]</ref> Final results show Leave with 52% of the vote to Remain with 48%, a margin that was 5 points better than polling.

Most people believe if the Brexit campaign is successful, the 28-nation EU economic and political alliance is doomed. Financial giants warned the British of credit downgrades. The British Pound dropped significantly as results started pouring in showing Leave doing better than expected.

It is now very likely that [[France]], the Netherlands, Austria, Finland and Hungary could hold a similar referendum.

== Eligible voters ==
*Voters must be 18 or older
*British, Irish or Commonwealth citizen who resides in Britain.
*British nationals who have lived overseas for less than 15 years can also vote.

== See also ==
* [[European Union]]
* [[United Kingdom Independence Party|UKIP]]
* [[Grexit]]
* [[Examples of EU regulations on Britain]]

== External links ==
* [http://eureferendum.blogspot.co.uk/ EU Referendum]
* [http://youtu.be/eYqzcqDtL3k Brexit The Movie]

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:European Politics]]
[[Category:United Kingdom|United Kingdom]]
[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:British Empire]]

Ultimate fate of the universe

2016-08-30T12:12:44Z

PeterHockey: Added a bit

The '''ultimate fate of the universe''' is a valid question because according to all models on the universe, the universe is finite, and will end.<ref name="religious">''When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and behold, there was a great earthquake, and the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood, and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree sheds its winter fruit when shaken by a gale. The sky vanished like a scroll that is being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. (Revelation 6:12–14)''</ref><ref name="bigbang">^ a b Lemaître, Georges (1927). "Un univers homogène de masse constante et de rayon croissant rendant compte de la vitesse radiale des nébuleuses extra-galactiques". Annales de la Société Scientifique de Bruxelles A47: 49–56. Bibcode 1927ASSB...47...49L translated by A. S. Eddington: Lemaître, Georges (1931). "Expansion of the universe, A homogeneous universe of constant mass and increasing radius accounting for the radial velocity of extra-galactic nebulæ". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 91: 483–490. Bibcode 1931MNRAS..91..483L</ref><ref name="static">Thomson, William. (1851). "On the Dynamical Theory of Heat, with numerical results deduced from Mr Joule’s equivalent of a Thermal Unit, and M. Regnault’s Observations on Steam." Excerpts. [§§1–14 & §§99–100], Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, March, 1851; and Philosophical Magazine IV. 1852, [from Mathematical and Physical Papers, vol. i, art. XLVIII, pp. 174]</ref> The only question logically, is what will happen at the end of the universe. There are many different scientific scenarios, and religious scenarios as well. When the Big Bang theory became the foremost explanation for the current state of the universe, the fate of the universe became a valid question.

==Background==
The universe is currently expanding at a rate of 73.8 ± 2.4 kilometers per second per Megaparsecs. (''A megaparsec is 3.08x1019 kilometers'') Under the big bang model, expansion is currently accelerating.<ref>M. Stone (1976). "Lifetime and decay of excited vacuum states". Phys. Rev. D 14 (12): 3568–3573. Bibcode 1976PhRvD..14.3568S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.14.3568.</ref> When [[catholic]] priest George Lemaitre proposed that the universe was born from a singularity, which was expounded on by Edwin Hubble, using the theory of relativity, it became clear that all theories implied an ultimate fate to the universe.

==Scientific theories==
There are three commonly accepted theories on how the universe will end. They are the Big crunch, where the universe collapses on itself, the Big Rip scenario, where acceleration destroys the bonding of atoms, and all matter decays, and the Heat death, where the universe reaches a maximum state of entropy.

===Big Crunch===
The Big Crunch theory is a symmetric view of the ultimate fate of the Universe. Just as the Big Bang started a cosmological expansion, this theory assumes that the average density of the universe is enough to stop its expansion and begin contracting. The end result is unknown; a simple estimation would have all the matter and space-time in the universe collapse into a dimensionless singularity, but at these scales unknown quantum effects need to be considered.
This scenario allows the Big Bang to be immediately after the Big Crunch of a preceding universe. If this occurs repeatedly, we have a cyclic model which is also known as a oscillatory universe. The universe could then consist of an infinite sequence of finite universes, each finite universe ending with a Big Crunch that is also the Big Bang of the next universe. Theoretically, the cyclic universe could not be reconciled with the second law of thermodynamics: entropy would build up from oscillation to oscillation and cause heat death. Other measurements suggested the universe is not closed. These arguments caused cosmologists to abandon the oscillating universe model. A somewhat similar idea is embraced by the cyclic model, but this idea evades heat death, because of an expansion of the branes that dilutes entropy accumulated in the previous cycle. In the big crunch, the universe will end approximately 30 billion years from now.
===Big Rip===
In the special case of phantom dark energy, which has even more negative pressure than a simple cosmological constant, the density of dark energy increases with time, causing the rate of acceleration to increase, leading to a steady increase in the Hubble constant. As a result, all material objects in the universe, starting with galaxies and eventually, all forms, no matter how small, will disintegrate into unbound elementary particles and radiation, ripped apart by the phantom energy force and shooting apart from each other. The end state of the universe is a singularity, as the dark energy density and expansion rate becomes infinite. For a possible timeline based on current physical theories, see 1 E19 s and more. This universe will end approximately 100 billion years from now.
===Heat death===
After the Stelliferous Epoch, all hydrogen in the universe will be exhausted. Then, only remnants remain. After 1017 billion years from now, some theories predict that [[protons]] will decay into a positron and a pion. All particles will decay, leaving behind nothing but simple particles such as photons and leptons. The rate of entropy will be at a maximum. There will be no stars as there will be almost no fuel for them to burn.

==Religious Views==
Most organized religions have a prophecy regarding the end of the universe, and of time itself. The 3 Abrahamic religions predict a "judgement day", while Buddhism follows a more "heat death" scenario.<ref>Jātaka 20:12-1 ''And the all will fall quiet, forever; all will reach nirvana, or perish in "naraka"''</ref> Others believe in an infinite "flat" universe, where everything is static<ref name="scientology">Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, Hubbard, Ron, L ''accessed 11/21/11</ref>

==Judeo-Christian-Islam==
The Abrahamic religions teach a judgement day, where the righteous will enter heaven, and the wicked, shall either be destroyed, or suffer for all eternity in hell.<ref>Revelations 21:8 ''But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death''</ref> Regarding the universe, the three religions agree that the universe will be destroyed, and replaced with a new earth, universe, and God will reign forever and ever.

==Buddhist-Hindu==
Buddhism and Hinduism teach that the universe will one day be devoid of life, and action. This is because the people will have escaped the cycle of life and death, desire, and suffering, and enter a state of nirvana. The wicked will suffer in naraka, for unimaginably long periods of time, but not forever.

== Atheism and agnosticism and the fate of the universe ==

''See also:'' [[Hopelessness of atheism]] and [[Atheism and the origin of the universe]]
[[Image:998086u.jpg|right|thumbnail|200px|[[Bertrand Russell]] ]]
Although [[Bertrand Russell]] was an [[agnosticism|agnostic]], he had favorable views of atheism.<ref>Russell, Bertrand (1947) "Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?"[http://www.luminary.us/russell/atheist_agnostic.html] Most online sources say "by which one prove," probably a mistake.</ref> Bertrand Russell wrote in 1903 about [[entropy]] and the universe:
{{cquote|That man is the product of causes that had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of [[atom]]s; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the [[solar system]], and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins- all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand.

"Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding dispair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built." <ref>[http://www.alamut.com/subj/ideologies/pessimism/entropy.html Entropy and heat death]</ref>}}

In a letter to Lowes Dickinson, Bertrand Russell wrote:
{{cquote|We stand on the shores of an ocean, crying to the night and the emptiness; sometimes a voice answers out of the darkness. But it is a voice of one drowning; and in a moment the silence returns” (Bertrand Russell, Autobiography, p. 287 as quoted by Leroy Koopman, “Famous Atheists Give Their Testimonies,” Moody Monthly, Nov. 1975, p. 124.) <ref>[http://www.guidelines.org/commentaries/atheism-and-the-despair-of-hope/#sthash.deoxNoqK.dpuf Atheism and the despair of hope]</ref>}}

==Fringe groups==
Certain fringe groups, such as Scientology, hold that the universe is static, and will never change.<ref name="scientology" /> Specifically, it states that all consciousness will follow the same pattern of birth and rebirth, forever.

==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Cosmology]]

Gravitation

2016-08-30T12:05:14Z

PeterHockey: Correction

'''Gravitation''' is a [[scientific theory]] which attempts to define the tendency for every object with [[mass]] to attract every other object with [[mass]]. Gravitation is what gives everyday objects [[weight]], and what causes objects that are dropped from a height to fall to the ground. Gravitation also keeps the [[moon]] in orbit around the [[Earth]] and the Earth in orbit around the [[sun]].

The magnitude of the force of attraction depends on the mass of the objects and the distance between them. For example, the gravitational force between two persons is minuscule; however, the gravitational force between a person and the [[earth]] is quite significant. If the person gets in a spacecraft and flies halfway to the moon, the gravitational force between him and the earth will significantly decrease because they are farther apart. The force will never become zero no matter how far he goes from the earth; however, if he goes far enough away, it will be counterbalanced by other masses' gravitational force.

The mechanism with which gravity interacts with objects has never been directly observed. [[Isaac Newton]] famously said about gravity, ''"Hypotheses non fingo,"'' or, "I make no hypotheses" about how it works. More recently, [[Albert Einstein]] hypothesized as part of [[general relativity]] that gravity is a force caused by masses distorting [[spacetime]] itself. [[Quantum mechanics]], on the other hand, hypothesizes that gravity is transmitted by a hypothetical particle, the [[graviton]], similar to how the electromagnetic force is transmitted by the [[photon]]. The debate continues as scientists try to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics.

== Scientific Theories of Gravitation ==

Over the past four centuries, many [[scientific theory|scientific theories]] of gravitation have been proposed. Three of these theories have gained sufficient widespread acceptance to be considered, for a time, "correct" theories.

=== Galilean Gravitation ===

Gravitation has been the subject of modern scientific study for about 400 years, beginning with the work of [[Galileo Galilei]] in the late 16th century. According to a biography written by his pupil, Vincenzo Viviani, Galileo dropped objects from the Leaning Tower of Pisa to demonstrate that objects fall at the same rate regardless of mass.<ref>Drake, Stillman. ''Galileo At Work.'' (1978)</ref> (Historians now disagree as to whether this experiment actually took place in the way Viviani described.) These results were in contradiction to the ancient Aristotelian conception of gravity, which stated that the speed of an object's fall was proportional to its weight.

Galileo also described a mathematical formula for the distance an object will fall in a given time, though his description was geometric rather than algebraic.<ref>Sharratt, Michael. ''Galileo: Decisive Innovator.'' (1994)</ref> His formula, that the distance fallen is proportional to the square of the elapsed time, or ''d ∝ t2,'' remains valid for many approximations today. However, Galileo's theory that the acceleration of gravity is independent on an object's height above the ground could not stand the test of time.

=== Newtonian Gravitation ===

In 1687, [[Sir Isaac Newton]] published his [[Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica|''Principia Mathematica'']], an exhaustive work that laid the foundation for what we know today as classical mechanics. In this work, Newton advanced the [[Law of Universal Gravitation|law of universal gravitation]] that had been previously published by Hooke and others. Whereas Galileo described gravitation in terms of motion, Newton described it in terms of a [[force]]. Gravitation itself went from the natural tendency of objects to fall to a vector [[field theory]] in which the force between two objects was inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Newton's vector equation for gravitation states that each particle in the [[universe]] attracts another particle with a force directly [[proportion]]al to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the [[exponentiation|square]] of the distance between them,<ref>Serway and Beichner, Physics for Scientists and Engineers, Fifth Edition</ref> or:

:<math>\mathbf{F} = -G \frac{m_1 m_2}{\vert {\mathbf{r}} \vert ^2} \mathbf{\hat{r}}</math>

Where:

*'''''F''''' is the gravitational force vector.

*''m''1 and ''m''2 are the object's masses.

*'''''r''''' is the vector that separates the objects' centers of mass.

* <math>\mathbf{\hat{r}}</math> is the unit vector of '''''r'''''; <math>\mathbf{r} = \vert {\mathbf{r}} \vert \ \mathbf{\hat{r}}</math>

*''G'' is the [[gravitational constant]]: <math>\frac{6.67428 \times 10^{-11} N m^2}{kg^2}</math>

Another way to express this equation, that is more convenient for programming and expansion into power series, is:

:<math>\mathbf{F} = -G \frac{m_1 m_2}{\vert {\mathbf{r}} \vert ^3} \mathbf{r}</math>

Near the surface of the Earth, where the difference in gravitational acceleration at different heights is very small, Newtonian gravitation "reduces" to, or is mathematically equivalent to within a known margin of error, Galilean gravitation. That is, both Galilean gravitation and Newtonian gravitation can reasonably describe the motion of falling apples and artillery shells. But further from the surface of the Earth, the errors in Galileo's approximation become too great, and Newton's model is required.

Newton's theory of gravitation stood, refined and reformulated, but essentially unchanged, for more than two centuries.

=== Relativistic Gravitation ===
In 1915, [[Albert Einstein]] published the [[general theory of relativity]], a radical reinterpretation of the phenomenon of gravitation, based on the work of [[Marcel Grossmann]], [[David Hilbert]], and others. Whereas Galileo described gravity in terms of motion, and Newton described gravity in terms of force, Einstein described gravity in terms of inertial motion in curved spacetime, such curvature being a function of the matter and fields in a given region. In the famous words of physicist [[John Wheeler]], "Matter tells space how to curve, and space tells matter how to move."<ref>Misner, Thorne & Wheeler. ''Gravitation.'' (1973)</ref>

Just as the Newtonian theory reduced to Galilean gravitation near the surface of the Earth, general relativity gravitation reduces to Newtonian gravity where gravitational fields are relatively weak. Only when gravitational fields are strong, such as the field around the sun within the orbit of [[Mercury]], do Newton's equations fail to produce a good approximation of reality.

=== The Possibility of Quantum Gravitation ===

During the era when Newtonian gravity was preeminent, gravitation was considered to be one of the "fundamental forces of nature," along with electricity, magnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces. Over the years, this interpretation has fallen out of favor, for a variety of reasons. Research into [[electrodynamics]] revealed the electric and magnetic forces to be two aspects of the same thing, and [[quantum mechanics]] described the strong and weak forces in terms of interactions mediated by [[boson]]s. Further research into quantum chromodynamics and the [[Standard Model]] increased our understanding of how electromagnetism and the nuclear forces work, but gravitation remained a thing apart.

Over the past few decades, attention has been turned toward formulating a [[Quantum gravity|quantum field theory of gravity]] which would describe the gravitational interaction in terms of a mechanism similar to the electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear interactions.

Physicists do not universally agree that a quantum theory of gravity is inevitable, or even possible. Einstein's theory of gravitation described gravity in a way that is so fundamentally different from the other interactions in nature that many physicists no longer gravity to be a force at all. Rather, under the Einsteinian interpretation, gravitation is an inherent property of spacetime and has no analogue at the quantum level at all. Other physicists believe that the Einsteinian interpretation is merely a useful large-scale approximation of an interaction which we have not yet detected on the subatomic scale.

To date, no satisfactory theory of quantum gravity has been advanced, but research continues.

==External links==
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i3/gravity.asp   Gravity: The Mystery Force]
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com/Newton_Universal_Gravity_Law.shtml   Newton's Universal Law of Gravitational Force]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Physics]]

E=mc²

2016-08-28T14:24:05Z

PeterHockey: Fixed typo

'''E=mc²''' asserts that the energy ('''E''') which makes up the [[matter]] in an unmoving object is equal to the square of the [[speed of light]] ('''c²''') times the [[mass]] ('''m''') of that body.<ref>"Energy and mass are linked in the most famous relationship in physics: E = mc². (The energy content of a body is equal to the mass of the body times the speed of light squared.)" [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/einstein-genius-among-geniuses.html Einstein: Genius Among Geniuses] - PBS's NOVA</ref> The complete form, when applied to moving objects, is '''E²=(mc²)²+(pc)²''', where '''p''' represents momentum,<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnMIhxWRGNw</ref> It is a statement that purports to relate all [[matter]] to [[energy]]. In fact, no [[theory]] has successfully unified the [[law]]s governing [[mass]] (''i.e.'', [[gravity]]) with the laws governing light (''i.e.'', [[electromagnetism]]), and numerous attempts to derive '''E=mc²''' from first principles have failed.<ref name="wvarticles">Five lectures at Wikiversity. The 4th one derives the formula, using the assumptions in the "What the Equation Means" section.
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/space,_time,_and_the_Lorentz_transform Lecture 1]
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/momentum Lecture 2]
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/energy Lecture 3]
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/E_%3D_mc%C2%B2 Lecture 4]
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/spacetime_diagrams_and_vectors Lecture 5]</ref> [[Politics|Political]] pressure, however, has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in [[science]] to even question the validity of this nonsensical [[equation]]. '''''Simply put, E=mc² is [[liberal claptrap]]'''''.

The formula asserts that the mass of an object has energy associated with it, even when it is not moving. This can be seen by setting the momentum, '''p''' in the formula '''E²=(mc²)²+(pc)²''' equal to zero. The formula shows a relationship between the rest mass of an object, its energy and the speed of light, '''p'''. Following this through, the apparent mass of an object depends on its energy and so [[conservation of mass]] is not satisfied. Instead, relativity proposes that the total energy of a [[closed system]] is conserved, when we "convert" the masses into energies using this formula.

Physicists have never been able to unify light with matter despite more than a billion-dollars-worth of attempts, and it is likely impossible to ever do so.<ref>Much of 20th century physics has centered around the interactions between photons (light) and fermionic matter, and much more than a billion dollars has been spent on this. But that doesn't imply that they have been "unified".</ref> [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]] predicts that there is no unified theory of light and matter because they were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the [[Book of Genesis]].

[[Mass]] is a measure of an object's inertia, in other words its resistance to acceleration. In contrast, the intrinsic [[energy]] of an object (such as an [[atom]]) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity. Declaring the object's energy to be a function of inertia rather than electrostatics is an absurd and impossible attempt to unify the forces of nature, contrary to the accepted view (as predicted by [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]]) that the forces of nature have not been unified. Liberal scientists assert the formula E=mc² is not limited to nuclear reactions; it applies to chemical reactions and even to the energy stored in a compressed spring.<ref>http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99140.htm</ref>

The claim that '''E=mc²''' has never yielded anything of value and it has often been used as a redefinition of "[[energy]]" for pseudo-scientific purposes by non-scientific journals. Claims can be found not only on liberal, second-tier college websites but at those of [[Baylor]] and the [[MIT]] that the equation is used in [[nuclear power]] generation and [[nuclear weapon]]s ([[nuclear fusion]] and [[nuclear fission]]) and about [[antimatter]].<ref>[http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/E=mcsquared/index.html John D. Norton ''Einstein for everyone - E=mc²''], Department of History and Philosophy of Science University of Pittsburgh</ref><ref>[http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/releng.html Rod Nave ''HpyerPhysics - Relativistic Energy''], Georgia State University</ref><ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html Peter Tyson ''The Legacy of E=mc²''] October 11, 2005. PBS ''NOVA''.</ref>

The [[Theory of Relativity]] has never been able to mathematically derive '''E=mc²''' from first principles,<ref name="wvarticles"/> and a physicist observed in a peer-reviewed paper published in 2011 that "Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."<ref>[http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AmJPh..79..591H Eugene Hecht: ''How Einstein confirmed E0=mc²'', American Journal of Physics, Volume 79, Issue 6, pp. 591-600 (2011)]</ref> Nevertheless, Robert Dicke - one of the most accomplished American-born physicists and experimental physicists in history - found it unlikely that the equivalence was wrong.<ref>R. H. Dicke "The Theoretical Significance of Experimental Relativity", Gordon and Breach, 1964</ref>

It has been known for a long time that radiation has a mass equivalence, which was correctly derived by [[Henri Poincaré]] in 1904,<ref>[http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josa/abstract.cfm?uri=josa-42-8-540 Herbert E. Ives ''Derivation of the Mass-Energy Relation'', JOSA, Vol. 42, Issue 8, pp. 540-543 (1952)]</ref> but the equation '''E=mc²''' makes a claim far beyond that limited circumstance:

{{cquote|The equality of the mass equivalent of radiation to the mass lost by a radiating body is derivable from Poincaré’s momentum of radiation (1900) and his principle of relativity (1904).|||[[Herbert Ives]], 1952}}


== Description for the layman ==

The equation is extremely famous, and just as extremely misunderstood, in popular culture. Among the more outlandish claims are statements to the effect that "E=mc² holds the secret of the atomic bomb."<ref>Not so. The energy of the atomic bomb comes not from E=mc², but from the tension between the electrostatic force and the strong nuclear force. E=mc² simply meant that the fission products from the [[Little Boy|Hiroshima]] bomb weighed 0.7 grams less than the original Uranium.</ref>
[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|
*"I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional [[Atheism|atheist]] whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." - [[Albert Einstein]]<ref name="Isaacson390">Isaacson, Walter (2008). [http://books.google.com/books?id=cdxWNE7NY6QC&pg=PT390 ''Einstein: His Life and Universe''] (New York: Simon and Schuster), p. 390. Retrieved from GoogleBooks archive on February 19, 2015.</ref>]]
The equation has acquired something of a "cult" status. In the USA, the popular ''[[Twilight Zone]]'' series featured '''E=mc²''' prominently, giving the equation greater currency with the public. The song ''[[Albert Einstein|Einstein]] A Go-Go'' by the band Landscape had a similar effect in the UK in the 1980s. The equation was the title of a single by ''Big Audio Dynamite'' in 1985, and an album by Mariah Carey in 2008. Some movies have been themed on this equation.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0322120/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_2, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116160/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_1</ref> The equation, along with a picture of a mushroom cloud and a picture of [[Albert Einstein]], were featured on the front cover of an issue of ''Time'' magazine in 1946. All of this is disappointing when one considers how few people actually understand what the equation is saying.

A number of science writers—both serious scientists and science popularizers—have at various times written their own explanation of the equation. Some of these are helpful; many are not. One of the better ones, though not without its share of nonsense, is a NOVA series by the [[Public Broadcasting Service]]<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/ancestors-einstein.html David Bodanis ''Ancestors of E=mc²''], Nov 10, 2005, NOVA</ref>

In 2005 The PBS NOVA series also asked 10 physicists to describe the equation in layman's terms.<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html Lexi Krock, David Levin (editors) ''E=mc² explained'', June, 2005. PBS ''NOVA'']</ref> Here is a sample of five of the statements:
{{cquote|''It's something that doesn't happen in your kitchen or in everyday life.''|||[[Neil deGrasse Tyson]], Astrophysicist, American Museum of Natural History}}{{cquote|''When an object emits light, say, a flashlight, it gets lighter.''|||Sheldon Glashow, Theoretical Physicist and Nobel Laureate, Boston University}}{{cquote|''Things that seem incredibly different can really be manifestations of the same underlying phenomena.''|||Nima Arkani-Hamed, Theoretical Physicist, Harvard University}}{{cquote|''You can get access to parts of nature you have never been able to get access to before.''|||Lene Hau, Experimental Physicist, Harvard University}}{{
cquote|''It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.''|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}}

Of these, only the Sheldon Glashow quote makes a specific and meaningful statement about what the equation means.

== What the Equation Means ==
The equation is about energy, both kinetic energy and potential energy.

Kinetic energy is actual visible energy, that is, energy of things that are in motion. It's the energy of a thrown baseball. Radiation (for example, light) also counts as kinetic energy—it's the motion of photons. Light carries energy, force, and momentum. The force carried by light is not as obvious as the force of a thrown baseball, but it is there. The force of sunlight has been proposed for long-term space travel. It is also the force that causes the [[Pioneer anomaly]] and the force that makes a comet's tail stream away from the Sun.

Potential energy is the other kind—"hidden" energy. It can become kinetic energy, or vice-versa. A wound up spring, a charged battery, a stretched rubber band, a mixture of gasoline and air, an explosive, and a radioactive atom, all have potential energy. It's what is needed to make the principle of conservation of energy work. That is, when kinetic energy comes into existence, it's because potential energy was converted into kinetic energy. The wound-up spring of a clock has potential energy, that runs down over time, being converted into the kinetic energy of the ticking sound. A battery has potential energy that runs down when it provides electricity to make things move. Various chemical substances have characteristic amounts of potential energy, that may be converted to or from kinetic energy when chemical reactions occur. For example, Sodium and Chlorine have more potential energy than Sodium Chloride. Explosives have more potential energy than their constituent atoms. Radioactive atoms have more potential energy than their "daughter" atoms.

The principle of ''conservation of energy'', universally accepted for well over 100 years, says

::Total energy (kinetic + potential) is always conserved.

Hundreds of years of research by chemists (and, before that, the alchemists) worked out the potential energies that are characteristic of various substances, and that the potential and kinetic energies are accurately converted from one to the other, leading to the principle of conservation of total energy.

An interesting fact is that, normally, one considers only ''changes'' in potential energy; one doesn't need an absolute scale. A rock at the top of a hill has more potential energy than after it rolls to the bottom of the hill, but the energy at the bottom isn't necessarily zero. We could dig a hole and let it roll down farther, with its energy going negative. Only changes matter. Now it turns out that, once one accepts the implications of E=mc², one ''could'' assign an absolute potential energy to something—its mass times c², and changes in potential emergy would work out correctly because of the mass changes. But that isn't necessary, and, in any case, it would require accepting E=mc² and would therefore be getting ahead of the story.

With those preliminaries out of the way, it is possible to give a concise explanation of what the equation means:

::'''Potential energy has mass.'''

That is, it weighs something. Whenever anything has potential energy of any kind in it, improbable as this may sound, it weighs more. The proportionality constant is 1/c2, or 1.11 x 10−17 kilograms per joule. A fresh battery weighs more than a spent one, a wound-up alarm clock weighs more than a run-down one, etc.

Now that's way too small to measure for anything other than nuclear reactions, which is why it escaped everyone's notice for so long. But it has been measured and experimentally verified for nuclear transformations all across the periodic table.

:There's an interesting parallel with heat. Before the rise of thermodynamics, it was believed that heat was a "substance". That substance was called "caloric". When heat travels from one body to another, what was really happening was presumed to be a transfer of caloric. Much effort was put into measuring the mass of this mysterious "substance". It was always found to be zero, and we now know that what is actually being transferred is thermal energy. So it is not unheard-of to assign mass to intangible properties.

The nonzero mass of potential energy, and the equation E=mc², were determined on theoretical grounds, before any experimental observations were made. The logic of this follows from these assumptions:

#Galilean and Newtonian mechanics.
#Galilean relativity, that is, the notion that there is no absolute frame of reference.
#Conservation of energy.
#Conservation of momentum. (So far this is just classical physics.)
#The universality of the speed of light. (That is, special relativity.)

Keep in mind that, under special relativity, it's not just space and time that need to be redefined. The definitions of momentum and energy need to change also. This is necessary so that the '''conservation of energy and of momentum will be absolutely precise in all circumstances.'''

Under classical Newtonian mechanics, the momentum and kinetic energy of a moving mass are
:<math>p = mv\,</math>
and
:<math>E = \frac{1}{2}mv^2\,</math>
respectively. But under special relativity they are
:<math>p = \frac{mv}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}\,</math>
and
:<math>E = mc^2\left(\frac{1}{1 - v^2/c^2} - 1\right)\,</math>
One can verify that, in the non-relativistic limit, the relativistic values converge to the classical ones.

It is this requirement, and some "gedanken experiments" involving conversion between potential and kinetic energy, that lead to E=mc².<ref name="wvarticles"/> These experiments involve some kind of object that isn't moving (though there might be internal motion that doesn't figure in the experiment) and therefore has no kinetic energy and only potential energy, turning into some things that have kinetic energy. The requirements of strict conservation of total momentum and total energy prove the equation.

Einstein's famous derivation<ref name="einstein1905b">[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/ "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend its Energy Content?" Albert Einstein, Sept 1905]</ref> involved light instead of tangible objects, but the result is the same.

==History of Experimental Verification==
Because the change in mass arising from a given release of energy is so small (<math>1/c^2</math>, which 1.11 x 10−17 kilograms per joule), it is essentially impossible to check this equation for normal processes. For example, a flashlight battery loses about 1 picogram of mass when it discharges, and the resultant atoms from the detonation of 1 kilogram of TNT weigh 47 nanograms less than the TNT. Even if all the particles of smoke and gas could be collected reliably, the difference couldn't be detected.

Measuring the effect requires process that release vastly more energy than ordinary chemical processes. The discovery of Radium and Polonium around 1898 gave a tantalizing hint that there were processes that released far more energy than chemical processes could account for. These elements continuously released measurable heat, and also glowed in the dark.

Einstein touched on this possibility in his original 1905 paper.<ref name=einstein1905b/>
{{cquote|''It is not impossible that with bodies whose energy content is variable to a high degree (e.g. with radium salts) the theory may be successfully put to the test.''}}It would take more than a decade to develop an understanding of the nuclear process involved. The first thing that was required was accurate knowledge of atomic weights.

Atomic weights of the various elements were first measured, with accuracy of a few decimal places, by J. J. Berzelius in the late 1820s. This required extremely painstaking (for the time) measurements. The figures were refined to even more accuracy by J. A. R. Newlands in the 1860s. The values were accurate enough to clearly show the rather interesting property that the atomic weights were nearly integers, but not exactly so. The reason for this would turn out to be partly because of different isotopes (discovered by Frederick Soddy in 1913) and partly because of E=mc2.

In 1907 Rutherford determined that the "alpha" radiation from Radium was Helium. In 1911 he formulated the theory of the nucleus. In 1919 he demonstrated that nuclear transmutations could take place, such as

::<math>{}_7^{14}\mathrm{N}\, +\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}\,\rightarrow\, {}_8^{17}\mathrm{O}\, +\, {}_1^1\mathrm{H}</math>

The discovery of Radon, and much further investigation, revealed that the behavior of Radium was

::<math>{}_{88}^{226}\mathrm{Ra}\,\rightarrow\, {}_{86}^{222}\mathrm{Rn}\, +\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}</math>
and
::<math>{}_{86}^{222}\mathrm{Rn}\,\rightarrow\, {}_{84}^{218}\mathrm{Po}\, +\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}</math>

Accurate ways of measuring speed of a charged particle, by deflecting it in a magnetic field, had been developed by then, so that, by very painstaking observation and measurement, it was determined that the first alpha particle (Helium nucleus) had an energy of 4.78 MeV and the second an energy of 5.49 Mev. This confirmed E=mc2 up to the accuracy of the measurements. The equation, along with knowledge of isotope mixes, now explained why the atomic weights appearing in the periodic table were nearly integers, but not exactly so.

Around 1925, the development of the mass spectrograph, by Francis Aston, made it possible to measure atomic weights to extreme precision.

The 1932 Cockcroft-Walton experiment, described in more detail below, started to make the equation famous by confirming it, with reasonable accuracy, for an artificially induced nuclear reaction. (Confirming E=mc2 was not a goal of the experiment; it was an incidental consequence. The equation had already been known and understood for many years.)

In the decades since, nuclear transmutations have been performed, in particle accelerators, all over the periodic table, observing in detail the properties of various isotopes. These have confirmed E=mc2 with great precision. Perhaps the most precise test, by Rainville ''et. al.'',<ref name="rainville">[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7071/full/4381096a.html Nature 438, 1096-1097 (22 December 2005)] doi:10.1038/4381096a; Published online 21 December 2005</ref> confirmed the equation to an accuracy of a few parts per million.

==Alleged Experimental verification--the Cockcroft-Walton experiment==
In 1932 English physicist John Cockcroft and Irish physicist Ernest Walton performed the first artificial nuclear transmutation of nuclei, for which they were awarded the 1951 [[Nobel Prize]] in physics -- '''''but not for any verification of E=mc²'''''.<ref>[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/cockcroft-lecture.pdf John D. Cockroft ''Experiments on the interaction of high-speed nucleons with atomic nuclei''], Nobel Lecture, Dec 11, 1951</ref> The award was for ''"their pioneer work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei by artificially accelerated atomic particles."''<ref>[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/# Nobel Prize Organization]</ref>

Verifying E=mc² was not the goal of the experiment, and the Nobel prize was awarded for the transmutation itself, not any verification of the equation. But analysis of the experiment does in fact verify the equation for the transmutation involved.

They bombarded [[Lithium]] atoms with [[protons]] having a [[kinetic energy]] less than 1 [[Electron-Volts|MeV]]. The result were two (slightly less heavy) [[alpha particle]]s, for which the [[kinetic energy]] was measured as 17.3 MeV

:::::<math>{}_3^7\mathrm{Li}\, +\, {}_1^1\mathrm{H}\,\rightarrow\,2\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}</math>

The mass of the particles on the left hand side is 8.0263 [[atomic mass units|amu]], the mass on the right hand side ''only'' 8.0077 amu.<ref>Gerard Piel ''The age of science: what scientists learned in the 20th century'', Basic Books, 2001, p. 144-145</ref> The difference between this masses is .00186 amu, which results in the following back-of-an-envelope calculation:

::::<math>0.00186\,\mathrm{amu} \cdot c^2 = 0.0186 \cdot 1.66 \cdot 10^{-27}\,\mathrm{kg}\cdot\left(3\cdot10^8\,\mathrm{\frac{m}{s}}\right)^2</math>
::::<math>\approx\,2.79\cdot 10^{-12} \,\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{\frac{m^2}{s^2}}</math>
::::<math>\approx \,17.3\,\mathrm{MeV}</math>

Accurate measurements and detailed calculations allowed for verifying the theoretical values with an accuracy of ±0.5%. This was the first time a nucleus was artificially split, and thereby the first transmutation of elements using accelerated particles:

Perhaps best empirical verification of '''E=mc2''' was done in 2005 by Simon Rainville et al., as published in ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' (which is not a leading physics journal).<ref name="rainville"/> The article states that "Einstein's relationship is separately confirmed in two tests, which yield a combined result of 1−Δmc²/E=(−1.4±4.4)×10−7, indicating that it holds to a level of at least 0.00004%. To our knowledge, this is the most precise direct test of the famous equation yet described."

==A Famous Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium==

For most types of physical interactions, the masses of the initial reactants and of the final products match so closely that it is essentially impossible to measure any difference. But for nuclear reactions, the difference is measurable. That difference is related to the energy absorbed or released, described by the equation E=mc². (The equation applies to '''all''' interactions; the fact that nuclear interactions are the only ones for which the mass difference is measurable has led people to believe, wrongly, that E=mc² applies only to nuclear interactions.)

The [[Theory of Relativity]] played no role in this work, but proponents later tried to retrofit the theory to the data in order to explain the explain the observed mass changes.<ref>Actually, the formula E=mc2 was published in 1905, and has not changed since then. Fission of Uranium was discovered in 1938. It is not possible that the equation was retrofitted to explain this discovery.</ref> Here is the most famous example of the mass change.

Nuclear fission, which is the basis for nuclear energy, was discovered in experiments by [[Otto Hahn]] and [[Fritz Strassman]], and analyzed by [[Lise Meitner]], in 1938.

There are a great number of decay paths of [[Uranium]] fission that figured in this experiment. The result element that most caught their attention was [[Barium]], because it was chemically related to the Radium that they were expecting. One of the fission paths may have been this:

:235U → 140Xe + 91Sr + 4n

(The [[Xenon]] decayed within about a minute to 140Ba. They were searching for the chemical signature of Barium.)

The masses of the particles are:

{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0"
! Substance
! 235U
! 140Xe
! 91Sr
! 4 neutrons
|-
| Number of protons
| 92
| 54
| 38
| 0
|-
| Number of neutrons
| 235
| 140
| 91
| 4
|-
| Number of electrons
| 92
| 54
| 38
| 0
|-
| Mass
| 235.04393
| 139.92164
| 90.910203
| 4.03466
|}

The mass of the Uranium atom is 235.04393, and the sum of the masses of the products is 234.866503. The difference is .177427 amu, or, using the E=mc² equation, 165 million electron volts. (The generally accepted value for the total energy released by Uranium fission, including secondary decays, is about 200 million electron volts.)

The insight that the conversion from Uranium to Barium was caused by complete fission of the atom was made by Lise Meitner in December, 1938. She had the approximate "mass defect" quantities memorized, and so she worked out in her head, using the E=mc² equation, that there would be this enormous release of energy. This release was observed shortly thereafter, and the result is nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

==A Topical Example: Speed of Extremely Energetic Neutrinos==
Here is another example of the use of this formula in physics calculations. In 2011 there were [http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/22/faster-than-light-particles-neutrinos?newsfeed=true reports] that high-energy neutrinos had been observed traveling at a speed faster than the speed of light in an experiment at the Gran Sasso laboratory in Italy. Specifically, they seemed to have arrived at the detector 60 nanoseconds faster than light would have. Relativity doesn't allow that, and, since neutrinos have nonzero (but incredibly tiny) mass, they aren't even supposed to travel ''at'' the speed of light.

The mass of a neutrino is about 0.44x10−36kilograms. (Normally all of these things are measured in more convenient units such as Giga-electron-Volts, but that makes implicit use of E=mc2. If we don't accept that, we have to do the calculations under classical physics, using SI (meter/kilogram/second) units.) The neutrinos were accelerated to an energy of about 17GeV, or .27x10−8Joules. If one did not accept relativity and had to use classical physics and the classical formula <math>\mathrm{E} = \frac{1}{2}mv^2</math>, one would get v=110x1012 meters per second. This is about 370,000 times the speed of light, something that scientists would certainly have noticed. In fact, with special relativity, the speed is just under the speed of light, such that the neutrinos should be received at the detector about .26x10−24 seconds (.26 yoctoseconds) later than the speed of light itself. This is far too small to measure—15 orders of magnitude smaller than the resolution of the GPS signals in the experiment.

Later [http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/02/official-word-superluminal-neutrinos-leaves-warp-drive-fans-shred-hope%E2%80%94barely?ref=hp reports] started to resolve the mystery, and it is now accepted that the neutrinos behaved properly. But a BBC reporter made the incorrect statement that [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17364682 the neutrinos travelled at precisely light speed]. This was a simple misstatement, by .26 yoctoseconds.

The issue was discussed at length at Conservapedia.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/102#Faster_than_light_neutrinos</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/102#The_final_nail_in_the_coffin_of_relativity.3F</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/102#Another_Blow_to_Relativity</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/109#Neutrinos_now_obey_speed_limit</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/111#Neutrinos</ref>

==Deducing the Equation From Empirical Observation==

While the equation was historically developed on theoretical grounds as an inevitable consequence of special relativity, it is possible to deduce it purely from empirical observation.

So, for the purposes of this section, imagine that one is in the era of "classical physics"; prior to 1900 or so. Relativity has not been invented, but, inexplicably, nuclear physics has. Imagine that the phenomena of radioactivity and nuclear fission have been observed, without any knowledge of relativity.

A well-accepted physical law of classical physics was the law of conservation of mass. This was not easy to deduce. It required careful analysis of such phenomena as combustion, in the 1700s, to eliminate the various confounding sub-phenomena that made the law difficult to see. But, by 1900, the law was well established:

:::*'''In all interactions, mass is precisely conserved.'''

For example, the mass of a TNT molecule is 227.1311 Daltons, or 227.1311 g/mol, which is, for all practical purposes, the same as the mass of its constituent Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and Oxygen atoms. It is essentially impossible to measure the difference. The principle of conservation of mass is upheld.

But when nuclear phenomena are discovered, we notice something different. The masses of the result particles after an event (e.g. alpha decay, nuclear fission, or artificial transmutation) is measurably less than the masses of the original particle(s). With the invention of the mass spectrometer around 1920, it became possible to measure atomic weights of various isotopes with great precision.

Radium-226 decays into Radon-222 by emission of an alpha particle with an energy of 4.78 MeV.

1 kg of Radium-226 = <math>\frac{6.022 \times 10^{23}}{226.0254}</math> atoms. (The numerator is [[Avogadro's number]], and the denominator is the atomic weight of Radium-226.) This is 2.6643647 * 1024 atoms.

That number of Radon-222 atoms has mass .98226836 kg. That number of alpha particles has mass .01770863 kg.
The mass lost is .00002301 kg.

Each emitted alpha particle has energy of 4.78 MeV, or 4.78 * .1602 * 10−18 Joules. The total alpha energy from the decay of 1 kg of radium is 2.04 * 1012 Joules.

Also, Radon-222 decays into Polonium-218 by emission of an alpha particle with an energy of 5.49 MeV.

1 kg of Radon-222 = <math>\frac{6.022 \times 10^{23}}{222.0176}</math> atoms. This is 2.7124611 * 1024 atoms.

That number of Polonium-218 atoms has mass .98194467 kg. That number of alpha particles has mass .01802830 kg.

The mass lost is .00002703 kg.

Each emitted alpha particle has energy of 5.49 MeV. The total alpha energy from the decay of 1 kg of polonium is 2.39 * 1012 Joules.

It looks as thought we have to rewrite the law of conservation of mass:

:::*'''In all "ordinary" interactions, mass is precisely conserved.'''
:::*'''In nuclear interactions, there is a small but measurable loss of mass.'''

:By the way, we can clearly see that atomic weights of pure isotopes are not integers, and that it has something to do with the energy released by nuclear disintegration. In retrospect, the formula E=mc² explains the non-integer character of atomic weights.

Making special cases like this is unsatisfactory, of course.

We do this for a few other interactions, including the explosion of TNT. This would include the Lithium-plus-Hydrogen and Uranium fission phenomena described above. We won't bother with the details. As observational scientists, we look for patterns in the behavior of nature. We make a table:

{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0"
! interaction
! energy released per kg, Joules
! mass lost per kg of original substance, kg
|-
| explosion of TNT
| 4.184 * 106
| seems to be zero
|-
| alpha decay of Ra-226
| 2.04 * 1012
| .00002301 kg
|-
| alpha decay of Rn-222
| 2.39 * 1012
| .00002703 kg
|}

We plot these, and a few others, not shown, on graph paper, and find to our amazement that the relationship is linear.

For Ra, m/E = .112794118 E-16
For Po, m/E = .113096234 E-16

If this is linear, the mass defect for TNT would have been .47 * 10−10. We couldn't possibly have measured this.

So we can rewrite the rule for conservation of mass in a more satisfactory way:

:::*'''In all interactions, there is a loss of mass, equal to about .113 * 10-16 kg per Joule of energy released.'''

What we thought was exact conservation is just very nearly exact, and we hadn't been able to measure it before.

But maybe there's more. This constant has dimensions of kilograms per Joule. From high-school physics, we know that that is seconds squared divided by meters squared. That is, it is the reciprocal of the square of a velocity. We calculate that velocity. It is about 2.97 * 108 meters per second. Very close to the speed of light! Very interesting! (The calculations above were not extremely precise. The formula has been verified with great precision, but not here.)

We don't understand why (that will have to wait for the invention of relativity), but we can formulate a hypothesis:

:::*'''In all interactions, there is a loss of mass, equal to <math>\frac{1}{c^2}</math> times the amount of energy released.'''

We don't have to give the units any more, since everything is now dimensionally correct.

::There is a very interesting analogy with the discovery of [[Maxwell's Equations]]. Maxwell found an interesting relationship involving the fundamental constants <math>\epsilon\,</math> and <math>\mu\,</math> appearing in his equations. Specifically, <math>\epsilon\mu\,</math> has the dimensions of seconds squared divided by meters squared, and that:

:::::<math>\frac{1}{\epsilon\mu} = c^2</math>

::where "c" was the known velocity of light. He also showed that his equations predict electromagnetic waves, propagating at that speed.

==See also==
*[[Attempts to prove E=mc²]]
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]
*[[Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]

== References ==
<references />
[[Category:Relativity]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Bible]]

E=mc²

2016-08-28T14:23:06Z

PeterHockey: Fixed typo

'''E=mc²''' asserts that the energy ('''E''') which makes up the [[matter]] in an unmoving object is equal to the square of the [[speed of light]] ('''c²''') times the [[mass]] ('''m''') of that body.<ref>"Energy and mass are linked in the most famous relationship in physics: E = mc². (The energy content of a body is equal to the mass of the body times the speed of light squared.)" [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/einstein-genius-among-geniuses.html Einstein: Genius Among Geniuses] - PBS's NOVA</ref> The complete form, when applied to moving objects, is '''E²=(mc²)²+(pc)²''', where '''p''' represents momentum,<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnMIhxWRGNw</ref> It is a statement that purports to relate all [[matter]] to [[energy]]. In fact, no [[theory]] has successfully unified the [[law]]s governing [[mass]] (''i.e.'', [[gravity]]) with the laws governing light (''i.e.'', [[electromagnetism]]), and numerous attempts to derive '''E=mc²''' from first principles have failed.<ref name="wvarticles">Five lectures at Wikiversity. The 4th one derives the formula, using the assumptions in the "What the Equation Means" section.
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/space,_time,_and_the_Lorentz_transform Lecture 1]
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/momentum Lecture 2]
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/energy Lecture 3]
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/E_%3D_mc%C2%B2 Lecture 4]
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/spacetime_diagrams_and_vectors Lecture 5]</ref> [[Politics|Political]] pressure, however, has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in [[science]] to even question the validity of this nonsensical [[equation]]. '''''Simply put, E=mc² is [[liberal claptrap]]'''''.

The formula asserts that the mass of an object has energy associated with it, even when it is not moving. This can be seen by setting the momentum, '''p''' in the formula '''E²=(mc²)²+(pc)²''' equal to zero. The formula shows a relationship between the rest mass of an object, its energy and the speed of light, '''p'''. Following this through, the apparent mass of an object depends on its energy and so [[conservation of mass]] is not satisfied. Instead, relativity proposes that the total energy of a [[closed system]] is conserved, when we &quit;convert" the masses into energies using this formula.

Physicists have never been able to unify light with matter despite more than a billion-dollars-worth of attempts, and it is likely impossible to ever do so.<ref>Much of 20th century physics has centered around the interactions between photons (light) and fermionic matter, and much more than a billion dollars has been spent on this. But that doesn't imply that they have been "unified".</ref> [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]] predicts that there is no unified theory of light and matter because they were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the [[Book of Genesis]].

[[Mass]] is a measure of an object's inertia, in other words its resistance to acceleration. In contrast, the intrinsic [[energy]] of an object (such as an [[atom]]) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity. Declaring the object's energy to be a function of inertia rather than electrostatics is an absurd and impossible attempt to unify the forces of nature, contrary to the accepted view (as predicted by [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]]) that the forces of nature have not been unified. Liberal scientists assert the formula E=mc² is not limited to nuclear reactions; it applies to chemical reactions and even to the energy stored in a compressed spring.<ref>http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99140.htm</ref>

The claim that '''E=mc²''' has never yielded anything of value and it has often been used as a redefinition of "[[energy]]" for pseudo-scientific purposes by non-scientific journals. Claims can be found not only on liberal, second-tier college websites but at those of [[Baylor]] and the [[MIT]] that the equation is used in [[nuclear power]] generation and [[nuclear weapon]]s ([[nuclear fusion]] and [[nuclear fission]]) and about [[antimatter]].<ref>[http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/E=mcsquared/index.html John D. Norton ''Einstein for everyone - E=mc²''], Department of History and Philosophy of Science University of Pittsburgh</ref><ref>[http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/releng.html Rod Nave ''HpyerPhysics - Relativistic Energy''], Georgia State University</ref><ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html Peter Tyson ''The Legacy of E=mc²''] October 11, 2005. PBS ''NOVA''.</ref>

The [[Theory of Relativity]] has never been able to mathematically derive '''E=mc²''' from first principles,<ref name="wvarticles"/> and a physicist observed in a peer-reviewed paper published in 2011 that "Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."<ref>[http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AmJPh..79..591H Eugene Hecht: ''How Einstein confirmed E0=mc²'', American Journal of Physics, Volume 79, Issue 6, pp. 591-600 (2011)]</ref> Nevertheless, Robert Dicke - one of the most accomplished American-born physicists and experimental physicists in history - found it unlikely that the equivalence was wrong.<ref>R. H. Dicke "The Theoretical Significance of Experimental Relativity", Gordon and Breach, 1964</ref>

It has been known for a long time that radiation has a mass equivalence, which was correctly derived by [[Henri Poincaré]] in 1904,<ref>[http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josa/abstract.cfm?uri=josa-42-8-540 Herbert E. Ives ''Derivation of the Mass-Energy Relation'', JOSA, Vol. 42, Issue 8, pp. 540-543 (1952)]</ref> but the equation '''E=mc²''' makes a claim far beyond that limited circumstance:

{{cquote|The equality of the mass equivalent of radiation to the mass lost by a radiating body is derivable from Poincaré’s momentum of radiation (1900) and his principle of relativity (1904).|||[[Herbert Ives]], 1952}}


== Description for the layman ==

The equation is extremely famous, and just as extremely misunderstood, in popular culture. Among the more outlandish claims are statements to the effect that "E=mc² holds the secret of the atomic bomb."<ref>Not so. The energy of the atomic bomb comes not from E=mc², but from the tension between the electrostatic force and the strong nuclear force. E=mc² simply meant that the fission products from the [[Little Boy|Hiroshima]] bomb weighed 0.7 grams less than the original Uranium.</ref>
[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|
*"I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional [[Atheism|atheist]] whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." - [[Albert Einstein]]<ref name="Isaacson390">Isaacson, Walter (2008). [http://books.google.com/books?id=cdxWNE7NY6QC&pg=PT390 ''Einstein: His Life and Universe''] (New York: Simon and Schuster), p. 390. Retrieved from GoogleBooks archive on February 19, 2015.</ref>]]
The equation has acquired something of a "cult" status. In the USA, the popular ''[[Twilight Zone]]'' series featured '''E=mc²''' prominently, giving the equation greater currency with the public. The song ''[[Albert Einstein|Einstein]] A Go-Go'' by the band Landscape had a similar effect in the UK in the 1980s. The equation was the title of a single by ''Big Audio Dynamite'' in 1985, and an album by Mariah Carey in 2008. Some movies have been themed on this equation.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0322120/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_2, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116160/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_1</ref> The equation, along with a picture of a mushroom cloud and a picture of [[Albert Einstein]], were featured on the front cover of an issue of ''Time'' magazine in 1946. All of this is disappointing when one considers how few people actually understand what the equation is saying.

A number of science writers—both serious scientists and science popularizers—have at various times written their own explanation of the equation. Some of these are helpful; many are not. One of the better ones, though not without its share of nonsense, is a NOVA series by the [[Public Broadcasting Service]]<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/ancestors-einstein.html David Bodanis ''Ancestors of E=mc²''], Nov 10, 2005, NOVA</ref>

In 2005 The PBS NOVA series also asked 10 physicists to describe the equation in layman's terms.<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html Lexi Krock, David Levin (editors) ''E=mc² explained'', June, 2005. PBS ''NOVA'']</ref> Here is a sample of five of the statements:
{{cquote|''It's something that doesn't happen in your kitchen or in everyday life.''|||[[Neil deGrasse Tyson]], Astrophysicist, American Museum of Natural History}}{{cquote|''When an object emits light, say, a flashlight, it gets lighter.''|||Sheldon Glashow, Theoretical Physicist and Nobel Laureate, Boston University}}{{cquote|''Things that seem incredibly different can really be manifestations of the same underlying phenomena.''|||Nima Arkani-Hamed, Theoretical Physicist, Harvard University}}{{cquote|''You can get access to parts of nature you have never been able to get access to before.''|||Lene Hau, Experimental Physicist, Harvard University}}{{
cquote|''It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.''|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}}

Of these, only the Sheldon Glashow quote makes a specific and meaningful statement about what the equation means.

== What the Equation Means ==
The equation is about energy, both kinetic energy and potential energy.

Kinetic energy is actual visible energy, that is, energy of things that are in motion. It's the energy of a thrown baseball. Radiation (for example, light) also counts as kinetic energy—it's the motion of photons. Light carries energy, force, and momentum. The force carried by light is not as obvious as the force of a thrown baseball, but it is there. The force of sunlight has been proposed for long-term space travel. It is also the force that causes the [[Pioneer anomaly]] and the force that makes a comet's tail stream away from the Sun.

Potential energy is the other kind—"hidden" energy. It can become kinetic energy, or vice-versa. A wound up spring, a charged battery, a stretched rubber band, a mixture of gasoline and air, an explosive, and a radioactive atom, all have potential energy. It's what is needed to make the principle of conservation of energy work. That is, when kinetic energy comes into existence, it's because potential energy was converted into kinetic energy. The wound-up spring of a clock has potential energy, that runs down over time, being converted into the kinetic energy of the ticking sound. A battery has potential energy that runs down when it provides electricity to make things move. Various chemical substances have characteristic amounts of potential energy, that may be converted to or from kinetic energy when chemical reactions occur. For example, Sodium and Chlorine have more potential energy than Sodium Chloride. Explosives have more potential energy than their constituent atoms. Radioactive atoms have more potential energy than their "daughter" atoms.

The principle of ''conservation of energy'', universally accepted for well over 100 years, says

::Total energy (kinetic + potential) is always conserved.

Hundreds of years of research by chemists (and, before that, the alchemists) worked out the potential energies that are characteristic of various substances, and that the potential and kinetic energies are accurately converted from one to the other, leading to the principle of conservation of total energy.

An interesting fact is that, normally, one considers only ''changes'' in potential energy; one doesn't need an absolute scale. A rock at the top of a hill has more potential energy than after it rolls to the bottom of the hill, but the energy at the bottom isn't necessarily zero. We could dig a hole and let it roll down farther, with its energy going negative. Only changes matter. Now it turns out that, once one accepts the implications of E=mc², one ''could'' assign an absolute potential energy to something—its mass times c², and changes in potential emergy would work out correctly because of the mass changes. But that isn't necessary, and, in any case, it would require accepting E=mc² and would therefore be getting ahead of the story.

With those preliminaries out of the way, it is possible to give a concise explanation of what the equation means:

::'''Potential energy has mass.'''

That is, it weighs something. Whenever anything has potential energy of any kind in it, improbable as this may sound, it weighs more. The proportionality constant is 1/c2, or 1.11 x 10−17 kilograms per joule. A fresh battery weighs more than a spent one, a wound-up alarm clock weighs more than a run-down one, etc.

Now that's way too small to measure for anything other than nuclear reactions, which is why it escaped everyone's notice for so long. But it has been measured and experimentally verified for nuclear transformations all across the periodic table.

:There's an interesting parallel with heat. Before the rise of thermodynamics, it was believed that heat was a "substance". That substance was called "caloric". When heat travels from one body to another, what was really happening was presumed to be a transfer of caloric. Much effort was put into measuring the mass of this mysterious "substance". It was always found to be zero, and we now know that what is actually being transferred is thermal energy. So it is not unheard-of to assign mass to intangible properties.

The nonzero mass of potential energy, and the equation E=mc², were determined on theoretical grounds, before any experimental observations were made. The logic of this follows from these assumptions:

#Galilean and Newtonian mechanics.
#Galilean relativity, that is, the notion that there is no absolute frame of reference.
#Conservation of energy.
#Conservation of momentum. (So far this is just classical physics.)
#The universality of the speed of light. (That is, special relativity.)

Keep in mind that, under special relativity, it's not just space and time that need to be redefined. The definitions of momentum and energy need to change also. This is necessary so that the '''conservation of energy and of momentum will be absolutely precise in all circumstances.'''

Under classical Newtonian mechanics, the momentum and kinetic energy of a moving mass are
:<math>p = mv\,</math>
and
:<math>E = \frac{1}{2}mv^2\,</math>
respectively. But under special relativity they are
:<math>p = \frac{mv}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}\,</math>
and
:<math>E = mc^2\left(\frac{1}{1 - v^2/c^2} - 1\right)\,</math>
One can verify that, in the non-relativistic limit, the relativistic values converge to the classical ones.

It is this requirement, and some "gedanken experiments" involving conversion between potential and kinetic energy, that lead to E=mc².<ref name="wvarticles"/> These experiments involve some kind of object that isn't moving (though there might be internal motion that doesn't figure in the experiment) and therefore has no kinetic energy and only potential energy, turning into some things that have kinetic energy. The requirements of strict conservation of total momentum and total energy prove the equation.

Einstein's famous derivation<ref name="einstein1905b">[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/ "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend its Energy Content?" Albert Einstein, Sept 1905]</ref> involved light instead of tangible objects, but the result is the same.

==History of Experimental Verification==
Because the change in mass arising from a given release of energy is so small (<math>1/c^2</math>, which 1.11 x 10−17 kilograms per joule), it is essentially impossible to check this equation for normal processes. For example, a flashlight battery loses about 1 picogram of mass when it discharges, and the resultant atoms from the detonation of 1 kilogram of TNT weigh 47 nanograms less than the TNT. Even if all the particles of smoke and gas could be collected reliably, the difference couldn't be detected.

Measuring the effect requires process that release vastly more energy than ordinary chemical processes. The discovery of Radium and Polonium around 1898 gave a tantalizing hint that there were processes that released far more energy than chemical processes could account for. These elements continuously released measurable heat, and also glowed in the dark.

Einstein touched on this possibility in his original 1905 paper.<ref name=einstein1905b/>
{{cquote|''It is not impossible that with bodies whose energy content is variable to a high degree (e.g. with radium salts) the theory may be successfully put to the test.''}}It would take more than a decade to develop an understanding of the nuclear process involved. The first thing that was required was accurate knowledge of atomic weights.

Atomic weights of the various elements were first measured, with accuracy of a few decimal places, by J. J. Berzelius in the late 1820s. This required extremely painstaking (for the time) measurements. The figures were refined to even more accuracy by J. A. R. Newlands in the 1860s. The values were accurate enough to clearly show the rather interesting property that the atomic weights were nearly integers, but not exactly so. The reason for this would turn out to be partly because of different isotopes (discovered by Frederick Soddy in 1913) and partly because of E=mc2.

In 1907 Rutherford determined that the "alpha" radiation from Radium was Helium. In 1911 he formulated the theory of the nucleus. In 1919 he demonstrated that nuclear transmutations could take place, such as

::<math>{}_7^{14}\mathrm{N}\, +\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}\,\rightarrow\, {}_8^{17}\mathrm{O}\, +\, {}_1^1\mathrm{H}</math>

The discovery of Radon, and much further investigation, revealed that the behavior of Radium was

::<math>{}_{88}^{226}\mathrm{Ra}\,\rightarrow\, {}_{86}^{222}\mathrm{Rn}\, +\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}</math>
and
::<math>{}_{86}^{222}\mathrm{Rn}\,\rightarrow\, {}_{84}^{218}\mathrm{Po}\, +\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}</math>

Accurate ways of measuring speed of a charged particle, by deflecting it in a magnetic field, had been developed by then, so that, by very painstaking observation and measurement, it was determined that the first alpha particle (Helium nucleus) had an energy of 4.78 MeV and the second an energy of 5.49 Mev. This confirmed E=mc2 up to the accuracy of the measurements. The equation, along with knowledge of isotope mixes, now explained why the atomic weights appearing in the periodic table were nearly integers, but not exactly so.

Around 1925, the development of the mass spectrograph, by Francis Aston, made it possible to measure atomic weights to extreme precision.

The 1932 Cockcroft-Walton experiment, described in more detail below, started to make the equation famous by confirming it, with reasonable accuracy, for an artificially induced nuclear reaction. (Confirming E=mc2 was not a goal of the experiment; it was an incidental consequence. The equation had already been known and understood for many years.)

In the decades since, nuclear transmutations have been performed, in particle accelerators, all over the periodic table, observing in detail the properties of various isotopes. These have confirmed E=mc2 with great precision. Perhaps the most precise test, by Rainville ''et. al.'',<ref name="rainville">[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7071/full/4381096a.html Nature 438, 1096-1097 (22 December 2005)] doi:10.1038/4381096a; Published online 21 December 2005</ref> confirmed the equation to an accuracy of a few parts per million.

==Alleged Experimental verification--the Cockcroft-Walton experiment==
In 1932 English physicist John Cockcroft and Irish physicist Ernest Walton performed the first artificial nuclear transmutation of nuclei, for which they were awarded the 1951 [[Nobel Prize]] in physics -- '''''but not for any verification of E=mc²'''''.<ref>[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/cockcroft-lecture.pdf John D. Cockroft ''Experiments on the interaction of high-speed nucleons with atomic nuclei''], Nobel Lecture, Dec 11, 1951</ref> The award was for ''"their pioneer work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei by artificially accelerated atomic particles."''<ref>[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/# Nobel Prize Organization]</ref>

Verifying E=mc² was not the goal of the experiment, and the Nobel prize was awarded for the transmutation itself, not any verification of the equation. But analysis of the experiment does in fact verify the equation for the transmutation involved.

They bombarded [[Lithium]] atoms with [[protons]] having a [[kinetic energy]] less than 1 [[Electron-Volts|MeV]]. The result were two (slightly less heavy) [[alpha particle]]s, for which the [[kinetic energy]] was measured as 17.3 MeV

:::::<math>{}_3^7\mathrm{Li}\, +\, {}_1^1\mathrm{H}\,\rightarrow\,2\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}</math>

The mass of the particles on the left hand side is 8.0263 [[atomic mass units|amu]], the mass on the right hand side ''only'' 8.0077 amu.<ref>Gerard Piel ''The age of science: what scientists learned in the 20th century'', Basic Books, 2001, p. 144-145</ref> The difference between this masses is .00186 amu, which results in the following back-of-an-envelope calculation:

::::<math>0.00186\,\mathrm{amu} \cdot c^2 = 0.0186 \cdot 1.66 \cdot 10^{-27}\,\mathrm{kg}\cdot\left(3\cdot10^8\,\mathrm{\frac{m}{s}}\right)^2</math>
::::<math>\approx\,2.79\cdot 10^{-12} \,\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{\frac{m^2}{s^2}}</math>
::::<math>\approx \,17.3\,\mathrm{MeV}</math>

Accurate measurements and detailed calculations allowed for verifying the theoretical values with an accuracy of ±0.5%. This was the first time a nucleus was artificially split, and thereby the first transmutation of elements using accelerated particles:

Perhaps best empirical verification of '''E=mc2''' was done in 2005 by Simon Rainville et al., as published in ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' (which is not a leading physics journal).<ref name="rainville"/> The article states that "Einstein's relationship is separately confirmed in two tests, which yield a combined result of 1−Δmc²/E=(−1.4±4.4)×10−7, indicating that it holds to a level of at least 0.00004%. To our knowledge, this is the most precise direct test of the famous equation yet described."

==A Famous Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium==

For most types of physical interactions, the masses of the initial reactants and of the final products match so closely that it is essentially impossible to measure any difference. But for nuclear reactions, the difference is measurable. That difference is related to the energy absorbed or released, described by the equation E=mc². (The equation applies to '''all''' interactions; the fact that nuclear interactions are the only ones for which the mass difference is measurable has led people to believe, wrongly, that E=mc² applies only to nuclear interactions.)

The [[Theory of Relativity]] played no role in this work, but proponents later tried to retrofit the theory to the data in order to explain the explain the observed mass changes.<ref>Actually, the formula E=mc2 was published in 1905, and has not changed since then. Fission of Uranium was discovered in 1938. It is not possible that the equation was retrofitted to explain this discovery.</ref> Here is the most famous example of the mass change.

Nuclear fission, which is the basis for nuclear energy, was discovered in experiments by [[Otto Hahn]] and [[Fritz Strassman]], and analyzed by [[Lise Meitner]], in 1938.

There are a great number of decay paths of [[Uranium]] fission that figured in this experiment. The result element that most caught their attention was [[Barium]], because it was chemically related to the Radium that they were expecting. One of the fission paths may have been this:

:235U → 140Xe + 91Sr + 4n

(The [[Xenon]] decayed within about a minute to 140Ba. They were searching for the chemical signature of Barium.)

The masses of the particles are:

{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0"
! Substance
! 235U
! 140Xe
! 91Sr
! 4 neutrons
|-
| Number of protons
| 92
| 54
| 38
| 0
|-
| Number of neutrons
| 235
| 140
| 91
| 4
|-
| Number of electrons
| 92
| 54
| 38
| 0
|-
| Mass
| 235.04393
| 139.92164
| 90.910203
| 4.03466
|}

The mass of the Uranium atom is 235.04393, and the sum of the masses of the products is 234.866503. The difference is .177427 amu, or, using the E=mc² equation, 165 million electron volts. (The generally accepted value for the total energy released by Uranium fission, including secondary decays, is about 200 million electron volts.)

The insight that the conversion from Uranium to Barium was caused by complete fission of the atom was made by Lise Meitner in December, 1938. She had the approximate "mass defect" quantities memorized, and so she worked out in her head, using the E=mc² equation, that there would be this enormous release of energy. This release was observed shortly thereafter, and the result is nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

==A Topical Example: Speed of Extremely Energetic Neutrinos==
Here is another example of the use of this formula in physics calculations. In 2011 there were [http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/22/faster-than-light-particles-neutrinos?newsfeed=true reports] that high-energy neutrinos had been observed traveling at a speed faster than the speed of light in an experiment at the Gran Sasso laboratory in Italy. Specifically, they seemed to have arrived at the detector 60 nanoseconds faster than light would have. Relativity doesn't allow that, and, since neutrinos have nonzero (but incredibly tiny) mass, they aren't even supposed to travel ''at'' the speed of light.

The mass of a neutrino is about 0.44x10−36kilograms. (Normally all of these things are measured in more convenient units such as Giga-electron-Volts, but that makes implicit use of E=mc2. If we don't accept that, we have to do the calculations under classical physics, using SI (meter/kilogram/second) units.) The neutrinos were accelerated to an energy of about 17GeV, or .27x10−8Joules. If one did not accept relativity and had to use classical physics and the classical formula <math>\mathrm{E} = \frac{1}{2}mv^2</math>, one would get v=110x1012 meters per second. This is about 370,000 times the speed of light, something that scientists would certainly have noticed. In fact, with special relativity, the speed is just under the speed of light, such that the neutrinos should be received at the detector about .26x10−24 seconds (.26 yoctoseconds) later than the speed of light itself. This is far too small to measure—15 orders of magnitude smaller than the resolution of the GPS signals in the experiment.

Later [http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/02/official-word-superluminal-neutrinos-leaves-warp-drive-fans-shred-hope%E2%80%94barely?ref=hp reports] started to resolve the mystery, and it is now accepted that the neutrinos behaved properly. But a BBC reporter made the incorrect statement that [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17364682 the neutrinos travelled at precisely light speed]. This was a simple misstatement, by .26 yoctoseconds.

The issue was discussed at length at Conservapedia.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/102#Faster_than_light_neutrinos</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/102#The_final_nail_in_the_coffin_of_relativity.3F</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/102#Another_Blow_to_Relativity</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/109#Neutrinos_now_obey_speed_limit</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/111#Neutrinos</ref>

==Deducing the Equation From Empirical Observation==

While the equation was historically developed on theoretical grounds as an inevitable consequence of special relativity, it is possible to deduce it purely from empirical observation.

So, for the purposes of this section, imagine that one is in the era of "classical physics"; prior to 1900 or so. Relativity has not been invented, but, inexplicably, nuclear physics has. Imagine that the phenomena of radioactivity and nuclear fission have been observed, without any knowledge of relativity.

A well-accepted physical law of classical physics was the law of conservation of mass. This was not easy to deduce. It required careful analysis of such phenomena as combustion, in the 1700s, to eliminate the various confounding sub-phenomena that made the law difficult to see. But, by 1900, the law was well established:

:::*'''In all interactions, mass is precisely conserved.'''

For example, the mass of a TNT molecule is 227.1311 Daltons, or 227.1311 g/mol, which is, for all practical purposes, the same as the mass of its constituent Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and Oxygen atoms. It is essentially impossible to measure the difference. The principle of conservation of mass is upheld.

But when nuclear phenomena are discovered, we notice something different. The masses of the result particles after an event (e.g. alpha decay, nuclear fission, or artificial transmutation) is measurably less than the masses of the original particle(s). With the invention of the mass spectrometer around 1920, it became possible to measure atomic weights of various isotopes with great precision.

Radium-226 decays into Radon-222 by emission of an alpha particle with an energy of 4.78 MeV.

1 kg of Radium-226 = <math>\frac{6.022 \times 10^{23}}{226.0254}</math> atoms. (The numerator is [[Avogadro's number]], and the denominator is the atomic weight of Radium-226.) This is 2.6643647 * 1024 atoms.

That number of Radon-222 atoms has mass .98226836 kg. That number of alpha particles has mass .01770863 kg.
The mass lost is .00002301 kg.

Each emitted alpha particle has energy of 4.78 MeV, or 4.78 * .1602 * 10−18 Joules. The total alpha energy from the decay of 1 kg of radium is 2.04 * 1012 Joules.

Also, Radon-222 decays into Polonium-218 by emission of an alpha particle with an energy of 5.49 MeV.

1 kg of Radon-222 = <math>\frac{6.022 \times 10^{23}}{222.0176}</math> atoms. This is 2.7124611 * 1024 atoms.

That number of Polonium-218 atoms has mass .98194467 kg. That number of alpha particles has mass .01802830 kg.

The mass lost is .00002703 kg.

Each emitted alpha particle has energy of 5.49 MeV. The total alpha energy from the decay of 1 kg of polonium is 2.39 * 1012 Joules.

It looks as thought we have to rewrite the law of conservation of mass:

:::*'''In all "ordinary" interactions, mass is precisely conserved.'''
:::*'''In nuclear interactions, there is a small but measurable loss of mass.'''

:By the way, we can clearly see that atomic weights of pure isotopes are not integers, and that it has something to do with the energy released by nuclear disintegration. In retrospect, the formula E=mc² explains the non-integer character of atomic weights.

Making special cases like this is unsatisfactory, of course.

We do this for a few other interactions, including the explosion of TNT. This would include the Lithium-plus-Hydrogen and Uranium fission phenomena described above. We won't bother with the details. As observational scientists, we look for patterns in the behavior of nature. We make a table:

{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0"
! interaction
! energy released per kg, Joules
! mass lost per kg of original substance, kg
|-
| explosion of TNT
| 4.184 * 106
| seems to be zero
|-
| alpha decay of Ra-226
| 2.04 * 1012
| .00002301 kg
|-
| alpha decay of Rn-222
| 2.39 * 1012
| .00002703 kg
|}

We plot these, and a few others, not shown, on graph paper, and find to our amazement that the relationship is linear.

For Ra, m/E = .112794118 E-16
For Po, m/E = .113096234 E-16

If this is linear, the mass defect for TNT would have been .47 * 10−10. We couldn't possibly have measured this.

So we can rewrite the rule for conservation of mass in a more satisfactory way:

:::*'''In all interactions, there is a loss of mass, equal to about .113 * 10-16 kg per Joule of energy released.'''

What we thought was exact conservation is just very nearly exact, and we hadn't been able to measure it before.

But maybe there's more. This constant has dimensions of kilograms per Joule. From high-school physics, we know that that is seconds squared divided by meters squared. That is, it is the reciprocal of the square of a velocity. We calculate that velocity. It is about 2.97 * 108 meters per second. Very close to the speed of light! Very interesting! (The calculations above were not extremely precise. The formula has been verified with great precision, but not here.)

We don't understand why (that will have to wait for the invention of relativity), but we can formulate a hypothesis:

:::*'''In all interactions, there is a loss of mass, equal to <math>\frac{1}{c^2}</math> times the amount of energy released.'''

We don't have to give the units any more, since everything is now dimensionally correct.

::There is a very interesting analogy with the discovery of [[Maxwell's Equations]]. Maxwell found an interesting relationship involving the fundamental constants <math>\epsilon\,</math> and <math>\mu\,</math> appearing in his equations. Specifically, <math>\epsilon\mu\,</math> has the dimensions of seconds squared divided by meters squared, and that:

:::::<math>\frac{1}{\epsilon\mu} = c^2</math>

::where "c" was the known velocity of light. He also showed that his equations predict electromagnetic waves, propagating at that speed.

==See also==
*[[Attempts to prove E=mc²]]
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]
*[[Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]

== References ==
<references />
[[Category:Relativity]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Bible]]

E=mc²

2016-08-28T14:21:44Z

PeterHockey: Rephrasing

'''E=mc²''' asserts that the energy ('''E''') which makes up the [[matter]] in an unmoving object is equal to the square of the [[speed of light]] ('''c²''') times the [[mass]] ('''m''') of that body.<ref>"Energy and mass are linked in the most famous relationship in physics: E = mc². (The energy content of a body is equal to the mass of the body times the speed of light squared.)" [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/einstein-genius-among-geniuses.html Einstein: Genius Among Geniuses] - PBS's NOVA</ref> The complete form, when applied to moving objects, is '''E²=(mc²)²+(pc)²''', where '''p''' represents momentum,<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnMIhxWRGNw</ref> It is a statement that purports to relate all [[matter]] to [[energy]]. In fact, no [[theory]] has successfully unified the [[law]]s governing [[mass]] (''i.e.'', [[gravity]]) with the laws governing light (''i.e.'', [[electromagnetism]]), and numerous attempts to derive '''E=mc²''' from first principles have failed.<ref name="wvarticles">Five lectures at Wikiversity. The 4th one derives the formula, using the assumptions in the "What the Equation Means" section.
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/space,_time,_and_the_Lorentz_transform Lecture 1]
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/momentum Lecture 2]
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/energy Lecture 3]
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/E_%3D_mc%C2%B2 Lecture 4]
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/spacetime_diagrams_and_vectors Lecture 5]</ref> [[Politics|Political]] pressure, however, has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in [[science]] to even question the validity of this nonsensical [[equation]]. '''''Simply put, E=mc² is [[liberal claptrap]]'''''.

The formula asserts that the mass of an object has energy associated with it, even when it is not moving. This can be seen by setting the momentum, '''p''' in the formula '''E²=(mc²)²+(pc)²'''. The formula shows a relationship between the rest mass of an object, its energy and the speed of light, '''p'''. Following this through, the apparent mass of an object depends on its energy and so [[conservation of mass]] is not satisfied. Instead, relativity proposes that the total energy of a [[closed system]] is conserved, when we &quit;convert" the masses into energies using this formula.

Physicists have never been able to unify light with matter despite more than a billion-dollars-worth of attempts, and it is likely impossible to ever do so.<ref>Much of 20th century physics has centered around the interactions between photons (light) and fermionic matter, and much more than a billion dollars has been spent on this. But that doesn't imply that they have been "unified".</ref> [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]] predicts that there is no unified theory of light and matter because they were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the [[Book of Genesis]].

[[Mass]] is a measure of an object's inertia, in other words its resistance to acceleration. In contrast, the intrinsic [[energy]] of an object (such as an [[atom]]) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity. Declaring the object's energy to be a function of inertia rather than electrostatics is an absurd and impossible attempt to unify the forces of nature, contrary to the accepted view (as predicted by [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]]) that the forces of nature have not been unified. Liberal scientists assert the formula E=mc² is not limited to nuclear reactions; it applies to chemical reactions and even to the energy stored in a compressed spring.<ref>http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99140.htm</ref>

The claim that '''E=mc²''' has never yielded anything of value and it has often been used as a redefinition of "[[energy]]" for pseudo-scientific purposes by non-scientific journals. Claims can be found not only on liberal, second-tier college websites but at those of [[Baylor]] and the [[MIT]] that the equation is used in [[nuclear power]] generation and [[nuclear weapon]]s ([[nuclear fusion]] and [[nuclear fission]]) and about [[antimatter]].<ref>[http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/E=mcsquared/index.html John D. Norton ''Einstein for everyone - E=mc²''], Department of History and Philosophy of Science University of Pittsburgh</ref><ref>[http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/releng.html Rod Nave ''HpyerPhysics - Relativistic Energy''], Georgia State University</ref><ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html Peter Tyson ''The Legacy of E=mc²''] October 11, 2005. PBS ''NOVA''.</ref>

The [[Theory of Relativity]] has never been able to mathematically derive '''E=mc²''' from first principles,<ref name="wvarticles"/> and a physicist observed in a peer-reviewed paper published in 2011 that "Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."<ref>[http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AmJPh..79..591H Eugene Hecht: ''How Einstein confirmed E0=mc²'', American Journal of Physics, Volume 79, Issue 6, pp. 591-600 (2011)]</ref> Nevertheless, Robert Dicke - one of the most accomplished American-born physicists and experimental physicists in history - found it unlikely that the equivalence was wrong.<ref>R. H. Dicke "The Theoretical Significance of Experimental Relativity", Gordon and Breach, 1964</ref>

It has been known for a long time that radiation has a mass equivalence, which was correctly derived by [[Henri Poincaré]] in 1904,<ref>[http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josa/abstract.cfm?uri=josa-42-8-540 Herbert E. Ives ''Derivation of the Mass-Energy Relation'', JOSA, Vol. 42, Issue 8, pp. 540-543 (1952)]</ref> but the equation '''E=mc²''' makes a claim far beyond that limited circumstance:

{{cquote|The equality of the mass equivalent of radiation to the mass lost by a radiating body is derivable from Poincaré’s momentum of radiation (1900) and his principle of relativity (1904).|||[[Herbert Ives]], 1952}}


== Description for the layman ==

The equation is extremely famous, and just as extremely misunderstood, in popular culture. Among the more outlandish claims are statements to the effect that "E=mc² holds the secret of the atomic bomb."<ref>Not so. The energy of the atomic bomb comes not from E=mc², but from the tension between the electrostatic force and the strong nuclear force. E=mc² simply meant that the fission products from the [[Little Boy|Hiroshima]] bomb weighed 0.7 grams less than the original Uranium.</ref>
[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|
*"I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional [[Atheism|atheist]] whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." - [[Albert Einstein]]<ref name="Isaacson390">Isaacson, Walter (2008). [http://books.google.com/books?id=cdxWNE7NY6QC&pg=PT390 ''Einstein: His Life and Universe''] (New York: Simon and Schuster), p. 390. Retrieved from GoogleBooks archive on February 19, 2015.</ref>]]
The equation has acquired something of a "cult" status. In the USA, the popular ''[[Twilight Zone]]'' series featured '''E=mc²''' prominently, giving the equation greater currency with the public. The song ''[[Albert Einstein|Einstein]] A Go-Go'' by the band Landscape had a similar effect in the UK in the 1980s. The equation was the title of a single by ''Big Audio Dynamite'' in 1985, and an album by Mariah Carey in 2008. Some movies have been themed on this equation.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0322120/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_2, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116160/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_1</ref> The equation, along with a picture of a mushroom cloud and a picture of [[Albert Einstein]], were featured on the front cover of an issue of ''Time'' magazine in 1946. All of this is disappointing when one considers how few people actually understand what the equation is saying.

A number of science writers—both serious scientists and science popularizers—have at various times written their own explanation of the equation. Some of these are helpful; many are not. One of the better ones, though not without its share of nonsense, is a NOVA series by the [[Public Broadcasting Service]]<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/ancestors-einstein.html David Bodanis ''Ancestors of E=mc²''], Nov 10, 2005, NOVA</ref>

In 2005 The PBS NOVA series also asked 10 physicists to describe the equation in layman's terms.<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html Lexi Krock, David Levin (editors) ''E=mc² explained'', June, 2005. PBS ''NOVA'']</ref> Here is a sample of five of the statements:
{{cquote|''It's something that doesn't happen in your kitchen or in everyday life.''|||[[Neil deGrasse Tyson]], Astrophysicist, American Museum of Natural History}}{{cquote|''When an object emits light, say, a flashlight, it gets lighter.''|||Sheldon Glashow, Theoretical Physicist and Nobel Laureate, Boston University}}{{cquote|''Things that seem incredibly different can really be manifestations of the same underlying phenomena.''|||Nima Arkani-Hamed, Theoretical Physicist, Harvard University}}{{cquote|''You can get access to parts of nature you have never been able to get access to before.''|||Lene Hau, Experimental Physicist, Harvard University}}{{
cquote|''It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.''|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}}

Of these, only the Sheldon Glashow quote makes a specific and meaningful statement about what the equation means.

== What the Equation Means ==
The equation is about energy, both kinetic energy and potential energy.

Kinetic energy is actual visible energy, that is, energy of things that are in motion. It's the energy of a thrown baseball. Radiation (for example, light) also counts as kinetic energy—it's the motion of photons. Light carries energy, force, and momentum. The force carried by light is not as obvious as the force of a thrown baseball, but it is there. The force of sunlight has been proposed for long-term space travel. It is also the force that causes the [[Pioneer anomaly]] and the force that makes a comet's tail stream away from the Sun.

Potential energy is the other kind—"hidden" energy. It can become kinetic energy, or vice-versa. A wound up spring, a charged battery, a stretched rubber band, a mixture of gasoline and air, an explosive, and a radioactive atom, all have potential energy. It's what is needed to make the principle of conservation of energy work. That is, when kinetic energy comes into existence, it's because potential energy was converted into kinetic energy. The wound-up spring of a clock has potential energy, that runs down over time, being converted into the kinetic energy of the ticking sound. A battery has potential energy that runs down when it provides electricity to make things move. Various chemical substances have characteristic amounts of potential energy, that may be converted to or from kinetic energy when chemical reactions occur. For example, Sodium and Chlorine have more potential energy than Sodium Chloride. Explosives have more potential energy than their constituent atoms. Radioactive atoms have more potential energy than their "daughter" atoms.

The principle of ''conservation of energy'', universally accepted for well over 100 years, says

::Total energy (kinetic + potential) is always conserved.

Hundreds of years of research by chemists (and, before that, the alchemists) worked out the potential energies that are characteristic of various substances, and that the potential and kinetic energies are accurately converted from one to the other, leading to the principle of conservation of total energy.

An interesting fact is that, normally, one considers only ''changes'' in potential energy; one doesn't need an absolute scale. A rock at the top of a hill has more potential energy than after it rolls to the bottom of the hill, but the energy at the bottom isn't necessarily zero. We could dig a hole and let it roll down farther, with its energy going negative. Only changes matter. Now it turns out that, once one accepts the implications of E=mc², one ''could'' assign an absolute potential energy to something—its mass times c², and changes in potential emergy would work out correctly because of the mass changes. But that isn't necessary, and, in any case, it would require accepting E=mc² and would therefore be getting ahead of the story.

With those preliminaries out of the way, it is possible to give a concise explanation of what the equation means:

::'''Potential energy has mass.'''

That is, it weighs something. Whenever anything has potential energy of any kind in it, improbable as this may sound, it weighs more. The proportionality constant is 1/c2, or 1.11 x 10−17 kilograms per joule. A fresh battery weighs more than a spent one, a wound-up alarm clock weighs more than a run-down one, etc.

Now that's way too small to measure for anything other than nuclear reactions, which is why it escaped everyone's notice for so long. But it has been measured and experimentally verified for nuclear transformations all across the periodic table.

:There's an interesting parallel with heat. Before the rise of thermodynamics, it was believed that heat was a "substance". That substance was called "caloric". When heat travels from one body to another, what was really happening was presumed to be a transfer of caloric. Much effort was put into measuring the mass of this mysterious "substance". It was always found to be zero, and we now know that what is actually being transferred is thermal energy. So it is not unheard-of to assign mass to intangible properties.

The nonzero mass of potential energy, and the equation E=mc², were determined on theoretical grounds, before any experimental observations were made. The logic of this follows from these assumptions:

#Galilean and Newtonian mechanics.
#Galilean relativity, that is, the notion that there is no absolute frame of reference.
#Conservation of energy.
#Conservation of momentum. (So far this is just classical physics.)
#The universality of the speed of light. (That is, special relativity.)

Keep in mind that, under special relativity, it's not just space and time that need to be redefined. The definitions of momentum and energy need to change also. This is necessary so that the '''conservation of energy and of momentum will be absolutely precise in all circumstances.'''

Under classical Newtonian mechanics, the momentum and kinetic energy of a moving mass are
:<math>p = mv\,</math>
and
:<math>E = \frac{1}{2}mv^2\,</math>
respectively. But under special relativity they are
:<math>p = \frac{mv}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}\,</math>
and
:<math>E = mc^2\left(\frac{1}{1 - v^2/c^2} - 1\right)\,</math>
One can verify that, in the non-relativistic limit, the relativistic values converge to the classical ones.

It is this requirement, and some "gedanken experiments" involving conversion between potential and kinetic energy, that lead to E=mc².<ref name="wvarticles"/> These experiments involve some kind of object that isn't moving (though there might be internal motion that doesn't figure in the experiment) and therefore has no kinetic energy and only potential energy, turning into some things that have kinetic energy. The requirements of strict conservation of total momentum and total energy prove the equation.

Einstein's famous derivation<ref name="einstein1905b">[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/ "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend its Energy Content?" Albert Einstein, Sept 1905]</ref> involved light instead of tangible objects, but the result is the same.

==History of Experimental Verification==
Because the change in mass arising from a given release of energy is so small (<math>1/c^2</math>, which 1.11 x 10−17 kilograms per joule), it is essentially impossible to check this equation for normal processes. For example, a flashlight battery loses about 1 picogram of mass when it discharges, and the resultant atoms from the detonation of 1 kilogram of TNT weigh 47 nanograms less than the TNT. Even if all the particles of smoke and gas could be collected reliably, the difference couldn't be detected.

Measuring the effect requires process that release vastly more energy than ordinary chemical processes. The discovery of Radium and Polonium around 1898 gave a tantalizing hint that there were processes that released far more energy than chemical processes could account for. These elements continuously released measurable heat, and also glowed in the dark.

Einstein touched on this possibility in his original 1905 paper.<ref name=einstein1905b/>
{{cquote|''It is not impossible that with bodies whose energy content is variable to a high degree (e.g. with radium salts) the theory may be successfully put to the test.''}}It would take more than a decade to develop an understanding of the nuclear process involved. The first thing that was required was accurate knowledge of atomic weights.

Atomic weights of the various elements were first measured, with accuracy of a few decimal places, by J. J. Berzelius in the late 1820s. This required extremely painstaking (for the time) measurements. The figures were refined to even more accuracy by J. A. R. Newlands in the 1860s. The values were accurate enough to clearly show the rather interesting property that the atomic weights were nearly integers, but not exactly so. The reason for this would turn out to be partly because of different isotopes (discovered by Frederick Soddy in 1913) and partly because of E=mc2.

In 1907 Rutherford determined that the "alpha" radiation from Radium was Helium. In 1911 he formulated the theory of the nucleus. In 1919 he demonstrated that nuclear transmutations could take place, such as

::<math>{}_7^{14}\mathrm{N}\, +\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}\,\rightarrow\, {}_8^{17}\mathrm{O}\, +\, {}_1^1\mathrm{H}</math>

The discovery of Radon, and much further investigation, revealed that the behavior of Radium was

::<math>{}_{88}^{226}\mathrm{Ra}\,\rightarrow\, {}_{86}^{222}\mathrm{Rn}\, +\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}</math>
and
::<math>{}_{86}^{222}\mathrm{Rn}\,\rightarrow\, {}_{84}^{218}\mathrm{Po}\, +\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}</math>

Accurate ways of measuring speed of a charged particle, by deflecting it in a magnetic field, had been developed by then, so that, by very painstaking observation and measurement, it was determined that the first alpha particle (Helium nucleus) had an energy of 4.78 MeV and the second an energy of 5.49 Mev. This confirmed E=mc2 up to the accuracy of the measurements. The equation, along with knowledge of isotope mixes, now explained why the atomic weights appearing in the periodic table were nearly integers, but not exactly so.

Around 1925, the development of the mass spectrograph, by Francis Aston, made it possible to measure atomic weights to extreme precision.

The 1932 Cockcroft-Walton experiment, described in more detail below, started to make the equation famous by confirming it, with reasonable accuracy, for an artificially induced nuclear reaction. (Confirming E=mc2 was not a goal of the experiment; it was an incidental consequence. The equation had already been known and understood for many years.)

In the decades since, nuclear transmutations have been performed, in particle accelerators, all over the periodic table, observing in detail the properties of various isotopes. These have confirmed E=mc2 with great precision. Perhaps the most precise test, by Rainville ''et. al.'',<ref name="rainville">[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7071/full/4381096a.html Nature 438, 1096-1097 (22 December 2005)] doi:10.1038/4381096a; Published online 21 December 2005</ref> confirmed the equation to an accuracy of a few parts per million.

==Alleged Experimental verification--the Cockcroft-Walton experiment==
In 1932 English physicist John Cockcroft and Irish physicist Ernest Walton performed the first artificial nuclear transmutation of nuclei, for which they were awarded the 1951 [[Nobel Prize]] in physics -- '''''but not for any verification of E=mc²'''''.<ref>[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/cockcroft-lecture.pdf John D. Cockroft ''Experiments on the interaction of high-speed nucleons with atomic nuclei''], Nobel Lecture, Dec 11, 1951</ref> The award was for ''"their pioneer work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei by artificially accelerated atomic particles."''<ref>[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/# Nobel Prize Organization]</ref>

Verifying E=mc² was not the goal of the experiment, and the Nobel prize was awarded for the transmutation itself, not any verification of the equation. But analysis of the experiment does in fact verify the equation for the transmutation involved.

They bombarded [[Lithium]] atoms with [[protons]] having a [[kinetic energy]] less than 1 [[Electron-Volts|MeV]]. The result were two (slightly less heavy) [[alpha particle]]s, for which the [[kinetic energy]] was measured as 17.3 MeV

:::::<math>{}_3^7\mathrm{Li}\, +\, {}_1^1\mathrm{H}\,\rightarrow\,2\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}</math>

The mass of the particles on the left hand side is 8.0263 [[atomic mass units|amu]], the mass on the right hand side ''only'' 8.0077 amu.<ref>Gerard Piel ''The age of science: what scientists learned in the 20th century'', Basic Books, 2001, p. 144-145</ref> The difference between this masses is .00186 amu, which results in the following back-of-an-envelope calculation:

::::<math>0.00186\,\mathrm{amu} \cdot c^2 = 0.0186 \cdot 1.66 \cdot 10^{-27}\,\mathrm{kg}\cdot\left(3\cdot10^8\,\mathrm{\frac{m}{s}}\right)^2</math>
::::<math>\approx\,2.79\cdot 10^{-12} \,\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{\frac{m^2}{s^2}}</math>
::::<math>\approx \,17.3\,\mathrm{MeV}</math>

Accurate measurements and detailed calculations allowed for verifying the theoretical values with an accuracy of ±0.5%. This was the first time a nucleus was artificially split, and thereby the first transmutation of elements using accelerated particles:

Perhaps best empirical verification of '''E=mc2''' was done in 2005 by Simon Rainville et al., as published in ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' (which is not a leading physics journal).<ref name="rainville"/> The article states that "Einstein's relationship is separately confirmed in two tests, which yield a combined result of 1−Δmc²/E=(−1.4±4.4)×10−7, indicating that it holds to a level of at least 0.00004%. To our knowledge, this is the most precise direct test of the famous equation yet described."

==A Famous Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium==

For most types of physical interactions, the masses of the initial reactants and of the final products match so closely that it is essentially impossible to measure any difference. But for nuclear reactions, the difference is measurable. That difference is related to the energy absorbed or released, described by the equation E=mc². (The equation applies to '''all''' interactions; the fact that nuclear interactions are the only ones for which the mass difference is measurable has led people to believe, wrongly, that E=mc² applies only to nuclear interactions.)

The [[Theory of Relativity]] played no role in this work, but proponents later tried to retrofit the theory to the data in order to explain the explain the observed mass changes.<ref>Actually, the formula E=mc2 was published in 1905, and has not changed since then. Fission of Uranium was discovered in 1938. It is not possible that the equation was retrofitted to explain this discovery.</ref> Here is the most famous example of the mass change.

Nuclear fission, which is the basis for nuclear energy, was discovered in experiments by [[Otto Hahn]] and [[Fritz Strassman]], and analyzed by [[Lise Meitner]], in 1938.

There are a great number of decay paths of [[Uranium]] fission that figured in this experiment. The result element that most caught their attention was [[Barium]], because it was chemically related to the Radium that they were expecting. One of the fission paths may have been this:

:235U → 140Xe + 91Sr + 4n

(The [[Xenon]] decayed within about a minute to 140Ba. They were searching for the chemical signature of Barium.)

The masses of the particles are:

{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0"
! Substance
! 235U
! 140Xe
! 91Sr
! 4 neutrons
|-
| Number of protons
| 92
| 54
| 38
| 0
|-
| Number of neutrons
| 235
| 140
| 91
| 4
|-
| Number of electrons
| 92
| 54
| 38
| 0
|-
| Mass
| 235.04393
| 139.92164
| 90.910203
| 4.03466
|}

The mass of the Uranium atom is 235.04393, and the sum of the masses of the products is 234.866503. The difference is .177427 amu, or, using the E=mc² equation, 165 million electron volts. (The generally accepted value for the total energy released by Uranium fission, including secondary decays, is about 200 million electron volts.)

The insight that the conversion from Uranium to Barium was caused by complete fission of the atom was made by Lise Meitner in December, 1938. She had the approximate "mass defect" quantities memorized, and so she worked out in her head, using the E=mc² equation, that there would be this enormous release of energy. This release was observed shortly thereafter, and the result is nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

==A Topical Example: Speed of Extremely Energetic Neutrinos==
Here is another example of the use of this formula in physics calculations. In 2011 there were [http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/22/faster-than-light-particles-neutrinos?newsfeed=true reports] that high-energy neutrinos had been observed traveling at a speed faster than the speed of light in an experiment at the Gran Sasso laboratory in Italy. Specifically, they seemed to have arrived at the detector 60 nanoseconds faster than light would have. Relativity doesn't allow that, and, since neutrinos have nonzero (but incredibly tiny) mass, they aren't even supposed to travel ''at'' the speed of light.

The mass of a neutrino is about 0.44x10−36kilograms. (Normally all of these things are measured in more convenient units such as Giga-electron-Volts, but that makes implicit use of E=mc2. If we don't accept that, we have to do the calculations under classical physics, using SI (meter/kilogram/second) units.) The neutrinos were accelerated to an energy of about 17GeV, or .27x10−8Joules. If one did not accept relativity and had to use classical physics and the classical formula <math>\mathrm{E} = \frac{1}{2}mv^2</math>, one would get v=110x1012 meters per second. This is about 370,000 times the speed of light, something that scientists would certainly have noticed. In fact, with special relativity, the speed is just under the speed of light, such that the neutrinos should be received at the detector about .26x10−24 seconds (.26 yoctoseconds) later than the speed of light itself. This is far too small to measure—15 orders of magnitude smaller than the resolution of the GPS signals in the experiment.

Later [http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/02/official-word-superluminal-neutrinos-leaves-warp-drive-fans-shred-hope%E2%80%94barely?ref=hp reports] started to resolve the mystery, and it is now accepted that the neutrinos behaved properly. But a BBC reporter made the incorrect statement that [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17364682 the neutrinos travelled at precisely light speed]. This was a simple misstatement, by .26 yoctoseconds.

The issue was discussed at length at Conservapedia.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/102#Faster_than_light_neutrinos</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/102#The_final_nail_in_the_coffin_of_relativity.3F</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/102#Another_Blow_to_Relativity</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/109#Neutrinos_now_obey_speed_limit</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/111#Neutrinos</ref>

==Deducing the Equation From Empirical Observation==

While the equation was historically developed on theoretical grounds as an inevitable consequence of special relativity, it is possible to deduce it purely from empirical observation.

So, for the purposes of this section, imagine that one is in the era of "classical physics"; prior to 1900 or so. Relativity has not been invented, but, inexplicably, nuclear physics has. Imagine that the phenomena of radioactivity and nuclear fission have been observed, without any knowledge of relativity.

A well-accepted physical law of classical physics was the law of conservation of mass. This was not easy to deduce. It required careful analysis of such phenomena as combustion, in the 1700s, to eliminate the various confounding sub-phenomena that made the law difficult to see. But, by 1900, the law was well established:

:::*'''In all interactions, mass is precisely conserved.'''

For example, the mass of a TNT molecule is 227.1311 Daltons, or 227.1311 g/mol, which is, for all practical purposes, the same as the mass of its constituent Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and Oxygen atoms. It is essentially impossible to measure the difference. The principle of conservation of mass is upheld.

But when nuclear phenomena are discovered, we notice something different. The masses of the result particles after an event (e.g. alpha decay, nuclear fission, or artificial transmutation) is measurably less than the masses of the original particle(s). With the invention of the mass spectrometer around 1920, it became possible to measure atomic weights of various isotopes with great precision.

Radium-226 decays into Radon-222 by emission of an alpha particle with an energy of 4.78 MeV.

1 kg of Radium-226 = <math>\frac{6.022 \times 10^{23}}{226.0254}</math> atoms. (The numerator is [[Avogadro's number]], and the denominator is the atomic weight of Radium-226.) This is 2.6643647 * 1024 atoms.

That number of Radon-222 atoms has mass .98226836 kg. That number of alpha particles has mass .01770863 kg.
The mass lost is .00002301 kg.

Each emitted alpha particle has energy of 4.78 MeV, or 4.78 * .1602 * 10−18 Joules. The total alpha energy from the decay of 1 kg of radium is 2.04 * 1012 Joules.

Also, Radon-222 decays into Polonium-218 by emission of an alpha particle with an energy of 5.49 MeV.

1 kg of Radon-222 = <math>\frac{6.022 \times 10^{23}}{222.0176}</math> atoms. This is 2.7124611 * 1024 atoms.

That number of Polonium-218 atoms has mass .98194467 kg. That number of alpha particles has mass .01802830 kg.

The mass lost is .00002703 kg.

Each emitted alpha particle has energy of 5.49 MeV. The total alpha energy from the decay of 1 kg of polonium is 2.39 * 1012 Joules.

It looks as thought we have to rewrite the law of conservation of mass:

:::*'''In all "ordinary" interactions, mass is precisely conserved.'''
:::*'''In nuclear interactions, there is a small but measurable loss of mass.'''

:By the way, we can clearly see that atomic weights of pure isotopes are not integers, and that it has something to do with the energy released by nuclear disintegration. In retrospect, the formula E=mc² explains the non-integer character of atomic weights.

Making special cases like this is unsatisfactory, of course.

We do this for a few other interactions, including the explosion of TNT. This would include the Lithium-plus-Hydrogen and Uranium fission phenomena described above. We won't bother with the details. As observational scientists, we look for patterns in the behavior of nature. We make a table:

{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0"
! interaction
! energy released per kg, Joules
! mass lost per kg of original substance, kg
|-
| explosion of TNT
| 4.184 * 106
| seems to be zero
|-
| alpha decay of Ra-226
| 2.04 * 1012
| .00002301 kg
|-
| alpha decay of Rn-222
| 2.39 * 1012
| .00002703 kg
|}

We plot these, and a few others, not shown, on graph paper, and find to our amazement that the relationship is linear.

For Ra, m/E = .112794118 E-16
For Po, m/E = .113096234 E-16

If this is linear, the mass defect for TNT would have been .47 * 10−10. We couldn't possibly have measured this.

So we can rewrite the rule for conservation of mass in a more satisfactory way:

:::*'''In all interactions, there is a loss of mass, equal to about .113 * 10-16 kg per Joule of energy released.'''

What we thought was exact conservation is just very nearly exact, and we hadn't been able to measure it before.

But maybe there's more. This constant has dimensions of kilograms per Joule. From high-school physics, we know that that is seconds squared divided by meters squared. That is, it is the reciprocal of the square of a velocity. We calculate that velocity. It is about 2.97 * 108 meters per second. Very close to the speed of light! Very interesting! (The calculations above were not extremely precise. The formula has been verified with great precision, but not here.)

We don't understand why (that will have to wait for the invention of relativity), but we can formulate a hypothesis:

:::*'''In all interactions, there is a loss of mass, equal to <math>\frac{1}{c^2}</math> times the amount of energy released.'''

We don't have to give the units any more, since everything is now dimensionally correct.

::There is a very interesting analogy with the discovery of [[Maxwell's Equations]]. Maxwell found an interesting relationship involving the fundamental constants <math>\epsilon\,</math> and <math>\mu\,</math> appearing in his equations. Specifically, <math>\epsilon\mu\,</math> has the dimensions of seconds squared divided by meters squared, and that:

:::::<math>\frac{1}{\epsilon\mu} = c^2</math>

::where "c" was the known velocity of light. He also showed that his equations predict electromagnetic waves, propagating at that speed.

==See also==
*[[Attempts to prove E=mc²]]
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]
*[[Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]

== References ==
<references />
[[Category:Relativity]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Bible]]

Second Law of Thermodynamics

2016-08-28T13:34:43Z

PeterHockey: Added a bit more

The '''Second Law of Thermodynamics''' is a fundamental truth about the tendency towards disorder in the absence of intelligent intervention. This principle correctly predicts that heat will tend not to flow from a cold body to a warmer one without work being done, e.g. by a [[refrigerator]]. It also predicts that "[t]he universe is constantly getting more disorderly!"<ref>The quotation is from Isaac Asimov, who continued to say "[v]iewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to [[work]] hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself -- and that is what the second law is all about.” Isaac Asimov, Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 6. Put in physics terminology, the Second Law states that the [[entropy]] of an isolated or [[closed system]] never decreases.</ref>

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is the result of the intrinsic uncertainty in nature, manifest in [[quantum mechanics]], which is overcome only by intelligent intervention.

This law makes it impossible to build a [[perpetual motion machine]] - the increase in entropy inevitably derails the system even if energy remains constant.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves the [[atheistic]] [[Theory of Evolution]] and [[Theory of Relativity]], both of which deny a fundamental uncertainty to the physical world that leads to increasing disorder.

==Entropy and disorder ==

In this context "increasing disorder" means "that which happens if you let nature take its course."
Imagine your old room at your parent's house. Remember how easy it was to let the room turn into a uniform mess (disorder) and remember how hard it was to clean it up until it fit a specific, non-uniform design (order). Not cleaning up would always result in an increase of entropy in your room!

Now, in nature there is no one to clean up the universe, only chances. The chance of something becoming orderly is a lot smaller than the chance of something becoming disorderly (since there are far more possible disorderly states to choose from).

Alternatively one could think of how difficult it is to construct a house of cards, while almost everything that happens in nature will result in its collapse.

On a universal scale a tidy room would be a universe which has pockets of above average concentrations of energy (if you - incorrectly - assume relativity [[E=mc²]] this includes matter as well.)
A messy room would be a universe in which all energy is equally spread out.

The flow of energy (by heat exchange) to places with lower concentrations is called the "heat flow".

The often heard argument that this law disproves an eternal universe is true, since in that case maximum entropy would have been reached already. A counter-argument to this would be to suggest that the universe is still in the process of approaching maximum entropy.

==Reversibility and Irreversibility==
[[Reversible process|Reversibility]] is a theoretical concept related to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. A process is reversible if the net heat and work exchange between the system and the surroundings is zero for the process running forwards and in reverse. This means the process does not generate entropy. In reality, no process is completely reversible. Irreversibility is a quantity sometimes called "lost work" and is equal to the difference between a process' actual work and reversible work. Irreversibility is also equal to a process' entropy generation multiplied by a reference temperature.

==Trend toward uniformity in the universe==

The universe will always become increasingly uniform, that is: heat will spread until the entire universe has the temperature and energy level (in a closed system heat will always spread from a place where there is a lot of heat to a place where there is less until balance is achieved), forces will continue to work until a universal balance has been achieved.

In this final state the universe is one uniform space where nothing happens and no work (moving something) can be done since there are no above average concentrations of energy left.
This state is called maximum entropy and is said to be in perfect disorder (although intuitively its uniformity would seem to be a state of perfect order) because it has become impossible to determine what happened in the past. ''i.e.'' There are an infinite number of ways (histories of the universe) maximum entropy could have been reached.

==The types of systems governed by the Law==
There is only one type of system that the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to: an isolated system. An isolated system is one that does not exchange matter or energy with its surroundings.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not strictly apply to the following types of system:
* Closed system - Exchanges energy, but not matter, with its surroundings
* Open system - Exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings

The boundary of any system can always be expanded to produce an isolated system.

==Liberal abuse of the second law of thermodynamics==

It has become common in recent years for [[Environmentalism|environmentalists]] to claim that the second law of thermodynamics implies limits to [[economic growth]]. Their reasoning is that because free energy in resources such as [[petroleum|oil]] decreases with time, then economic growth can only be finite. However, this simplistic [[liberal]] reasoning ignores the [[false zero-sum game|non-zero sum]] nature of [[free market economics]], whereby improvements in technology deliver gains for all at no further cost. Indeed, one of the most vital economic goods, knowledge, or more generally information, can be said to be free from thermodynamic limitations entirely.<ref>[http://www.discovery.org/a/2053] Discovery Institute cofounder and futurist George F. Gilder put it eloquently as follows: ''Gone is the view of a thermodynamic world economy, dominated by "natural resources" being turned to entropy and waste by human extraction and use. Once seen as a physical system tending toward exhaustion and decline, the world economy has clearly emerged as an intellectual system driven by knowledge.''</ref> Liberals also vastly exaggerate the limitations that [[natural resources]] impose on human economies. Some estimate that the [[Earth]] can harbor 100 billion people. God Himself gives His explicit assurance that the Earth will be generous as long as the human race exists in [[Genesis]]: "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." (Gen. 1:28, KJV)

== Creation Ministries International on the second law of thermodynamics and evolution ==

[[Image:Jonathansafarti.jpg|thumbnail|right|250px|right|[[Jonathan Sarfati]] ]]
''See also:'' [[Creation Ministries International on the second law of thermodynamics|Creation Ministries International on the second law of thermodynamics and evolution]]

[[Creation Ministries International]] has a great wealth of information on why the second law of thermodynamics is incompatible with the [[evolution]]ary [[paradigm]].

Some of their key resources on this matter are:

*[http://creation.com/the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-answers-to-critics The Second Law of Thermodynamics: Answers to Critics] by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]]

*[http://creation.com/thermodynamics-and-order-questions-and-answers Thermodynamics Questions and Answers]

*[http://creation.com/thermodynamics-and-evolution Thermodynamics and evolution]

*[http://creation.com/some-thermodynamics-criticisms-and-answers Some thermodynamics criticisms — and answers]

Evolutionists and other scientists claim that these resources misrepresent the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
== The 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics and the universe having a beginning ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and the origin of the universe]]

According to Ohio State University professor Patrick Woodward, the [[First Law of Thermodynamics]] "simply states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed (conservation of energy)."<ref>[https://chemistry.osu.edu/~woodward/ch121/ch5_law.htm 1st Law of Thermodynamics], Ohio State University, Professor Pat Woodward (teaches for the Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry [https://chemistry.osu.edu/faculty/woodward])</ref>

The [[Christian apologetics]] website ''Why believe in God?'' declares about the Second Law of Thermodynamics:
{{cquote|The second law of thermodynamics, or the law of increased [[entropy]], says that over time, everything breaks down and tends towards disorder - entropy! Entropy is the amount of UNusable energy in any systems; that system could be the earth's environment or the universe itself. The more entropy there is, the more disorganisation and chaos.

Therefore, if no outside force is adding energy to an isolated system to help renew it, it will eventually burn out (heat death). This can be applied to a sun as well as a cup of tea - left to themselves, both will grow cold. You can heat up a cold tea, you cannot heat up a cold sun. NOTE: when a hot tea in an air tight room goes cold (loses all it's energy) not only do we NOT expect the process to reverse by natural causes (ie. the tea will get hot again), but both room temp and tea temp will be equal. Keep that in mind as you read the next paragraph.

Look at it like this, because the energy in the universe is finite and no new energy is being added to it (1st law), and because the energy is being used up (2nd law), the universe cannot be infinite. If our universe was infinite but was using up a finite supply of energy, it would have suffered 'heat death' a long time ago! If the universe was infinite all radioactive atoms would have decayed and the universe would be the same temperature with no hot spots, no bright burning stars. Since this is not true, the universe must have begun a finite time ago.<ref>[http://www.whybelieveingod.net/istheuniverseinfinite.htm Is the Universe Infinite? Past beliefs and implications], Why believe in God? website</ref>}}

Thus, the First Law of Thermodynamics and the Second Law of Thermodynamics point to the [[universe]] having a beginning.<ref>
*[http://www.creationencounter.com/space/lawsofscience.php CAN LAWS OF SCIENCE EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE?]
*[http://cavern.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/universeorigin.htm Evidence for the Supernatural Creation of the Universe] by Patrick R. Briney, Ph.D.
*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=3704 The Laws of Thermodynamics Don't Apply to the Universe!] by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.
*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2106 God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective] by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.
*[http://creation.com/if-god-created-the-universe-then-who-created-god If God created the universe, then who created God?] by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.
*[http://creation.com/eternal-universe Has the universe always existed?]</ref>

== The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, theism and the origins of the universe ==

In the articles below, [[Theism|theists]] point out that the First Law of Thermodynamics and the Second Law of Thermodynamics point to the universe having a divine origin:

*[http://www.creationencounter.com/space/lawsofscience.php Can the laws of science explain the origin of the universe?]

*[http://cavern.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/universeorigin.htm Evidence for the Supernatural Creation of the Universe] by Patrick R. Briney, Ph.D.

*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=3704 The Laws of Thermodynamics Don't Apply to the Universe!] by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2106 God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective] by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

*[http://creation.com/if-god-created-the-universe-then-who-created-god If God created the universe, then who created God?] by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.

*[http://creation.com/eternal-universe Has the universe always existed?]

== See also ==

*[[Genetic entropy]]
*[http://www.livescience.com/50941-second-law-thermodynamics.html http://www.livescience.com/50941-second-law-thermodynamics.html]
*[[Essay:Commentary on Conservapedia's article on the second law of thermodynamics]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Second Law of Thermodynamics]]

Logical arguments for the existence of God

2016-08-28T13:28:09Z

PeterHockey: Rephrasing a bit

[[File:4335281098 237ce959bd.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|The [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and the [[second law of thermodynamics]] point to the universe having a beginning, and can be interpreted as being of divine origin.<ref>[http://www.creationencounter.com/space/lawsofscience.php Scientific laws and the Origin of the Universe]</ref><ref>[https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&article=310 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>[http://creation.com/if-god-created-the-universe-then-who-created-god If God created the universe, then who created God?] by [[Jonathan Sarfati]]</ref>]]
Logical arguments for the existence of God:

'''1.''' [http://www.creationencounter.com/space/lawsofscience.php Scientific laws and the Origin of the Universe] and [https://answersingenesis.org/is-god-real/god-natural-law/ God and Natural Laws]

'''2.''' [http://www.newyorkapologetics.com/does-god-exist-the-argument-from-change/ Argument from Change]

'''3.''' [https://www.kennethhensley.com/blog/lesson-eighteen-the-argument-from-efficient-causality Argument from Efficient Causality]

'''4.''' [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQNEikRF0Oc Argument from Time and Contingency]

'''5.''' [http://www.reasonablefaith.org/argument-from-contingency Argument from Contingency]

'''6.''' [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5reTfLSoJh4 Argument from Degrees of Perfection]

'''7.''' [http://www.gotquestions.org/teleological-argument.html Design Argument]

'''8.''' [http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/cosmological-argument.htm Kalam Cosmological Argument] and [[Arguments for the existence of God#Cosmological arguments|Cosmological Arguments]]

'''9.''' [http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#8 Argument from the World as an Interacting Whole]

'''10.''' [http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/80295.pdf Argument from Miracles]

'''11.''' [http://www.johnpiippo.com/2012/03/argument-from-consciousness-for.html The Argument from Consciousness for the Existence of God] and [[Atheism and reason#C.S. Lewis's argument from reason and for the irrationality of materialism|Argument from Reason]]

'''12.''' [http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2008/03/argument-from-truth-gordon-clark-style.html Argument from Truth - Gordon Clark] and [http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2011/04/argument-from-truth-in-augustine.html Argument from Truth - Augustine] and [http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#11 Argument from Truth - Peter Kreeft]

'''13.''' [http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#12 The Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God]

'''14.''' [http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#13 Ontological argument] and [http://www.reasonablefaith.org/misunderstanding-the-ontological-argument Ontological Argument - Alvin Plantinga]

'''15.''' [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU The Moral Argument] and [http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbgod.aspx?pageid=8589952712 The Moral Argument - Paul Copan] and [[Moral failures of the atheist population|Moral Failures of the Atheist Population]]

'''16.''' [http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/conscience.htm Argument from Conscience]

'''17.''' [[Argument from desire]] and [http://www.cslewisinstitute.org/webfm_send/396 Argument from Desire - C.S. Lewis Institute] and [[Atheism and gratitude#Thomas Aquinas and God as the ultimate cause of gratitude|God as the ultimate cause of gratitude]]

'''18.''' [http://www.quodlibet.net/articles/williams-aesthetic.shtml Aesthetic Arguments for the Existence of God] and [[Argument from beauty]]

'''19.''' [[Swinburne's argument from religious experience|Swinburne's Argument from Religious Experience]]

[[File:Autumn.jpg|291px|right|thumbnail|The [[argument from beauty]] does not rely on words and it cannot be defeated by words.<ref>[http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/07/03/politics/robbed-of-beauty-by-the-left/ How We’ve Been Robbed of Beauty by the Left]</ref> ]]
'''20,''' [http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#19 Common Consent Argument]

'''21.''' [[Transcendental argument for the existence of God|Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God]]

== Christianity and logic ==

*[https://answersingenesis.org/logic/is-the-christian-worldview-logical/# Is the Christian Worldview Logical?] by Dr. Jason Lisle

*[http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=977 Is Christianity Logical? [Part I]]

*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=994 Is Christianity logical part 2]

== Atheism and logic ==

*[[Atheism and logic]]

*[[Atheism and logical fallacies]]

*[[Atheism and critical thinking]]

*[[Atheism and reason]]

== Explosive growth of the early Christian church ==

=== Origin and growth of the early Christian church ===

*[http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/what-we-know-about-jesus-and-the-resurrection/ Origin and Growth of the Early Christian Church]

=== Did Jesus rise from the dead? ===

1. [http://powertochange.com/discover/faith/jesusrose1/ Did Jesus rise from the dead? - Part 1]

2. [http://powertochange.com/discover/faith/jesusrose2/ Did Jesus rise from the dead? - Part 2]

3. [http://powertochange.com/discover/faith/jesusrose3/ Did Jesus rise from the dead? - Part 3]

4. [http://powertochange.com/discover/faith/jesusrose4/ Did Jesus rise from the dead? - Part 4]
[[File:Fra Angelico Lamentacion por la muerte de Cristo.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|[[Jesus Christ]] and his apostles taught a gospel of love.<ref>[http://www.orthodoxchristian.info/pages/Gospel.htm ''The Triumph of the Gospel of Love''] by Monk Themistocles Adamopoulo</ref> ]]
==== The Resurrection of Jesus: A Look at the Evidence ====

*[http://christianapologeticsalliance.com/2014/04/15/the-resurrection-of-jesus-a-look-at-the-evidence/ The Resurrection of Jesus: A Look at the Evidence]

=== Triumph of the Gospel of Love ===

*[http://www.orthodoxchristian.info/pages/Gospel.htm Triumph of the Gospel of Love]

=== The Impossible Faith: A Defense of the Resurrection ===

*[http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.php The Impossible Faith: A Defense of the Resurrection] (scroll down to see)

== See also ==

*[[Arguments for the existence of God]]

*[[Christian apologetics]]

*[[Christian apologetics websites]]

*[[Rebuttals to atheist arguments]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Christian Apologetics]]
[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God]]
[[Category:Theology]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Religion

2016-08-28T13:13:23Z

PeterHockey: Removed exageration

"'''Religion'''" refers to a set of core beliefs upon which people base their lives. For [[Christians]], religion includes all of [[logic]] plus the addition of [[faith]]. Morality has often historically been based on religion, but many movements such as the [[secular humanism|secular humanists]] hold that morality does not depend on religion, and secular views of morality have existed as far back as ancient Greece.<ref>Humanism A new Religion. Simon and Schuster. pp. 64–69.</ref> Beyond this general definition, the word "religion" is used in several ways:

* '''Formal definition''': "The service and worship of [[God]] or the [[supernatural]];"<ref>[http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=religion "Religion"] in Merriam Webster dictionary.</ref> Under this definition, [[atheism]], [[agnosticism]], and [[secular humanism]] are not "religions.".<ref>Religious Groups Participating in Religious Congregations & Membership Study 2000. [http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/alldenoms.asp]</ref>
* '''Functional definition''': "A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"<ref>[http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=religion "Religion"] in Merriam Webster dictionary.</ref> By this definition, non-theistic belief systems such as [[atheism]], [[humanism]], and [[agnosticism]] could be considered religions. Indeed, the Supreme Court of the [[United States of America]] has acknowledged that "religion" does not need to include a belief in a god or gods, and included Secular Humanism as an example of a non-theistic religion.<ref>"Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God, are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others.". [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=367&invol=488#t11 Torcaso v. Watkins, (1961)]</ref><ref>"A federal court of appeals ruled ... Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat [[atheism]] as a religion." [http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874 Court rules atheism a religion] WorldNet Daily</ref> In 2014, Afghan citizen has been granted asylum in Britain on religious grounds because he declared himself to be an atheist.<ref>{{cite web |title=Afghan Atheist Wins Asylum In Britain On Religious Grounds |publisher=DPA |url=http://www.rferl.org/content/uk-afghanistan-asylum-atheism-religion/25229702.html |accessdate=14 January 2014 |quote=...The legal team submitted the case to the Home Office under the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, which aims to protect people from persecution on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, political opinions, or membership in a particular social group.}}</ref>
**'''Mathematics as religion.''' Based on [[Gödel]]'s Second Incompleteness Theorem, [[John Lennox]] explains that if a religion is something whose foundations are based on faith, then [[mathematics]] is the only religion that can prove its status as a religion.<ref name="LENNOX">{{cite book
|author=John C. Lennox
|title=God's undertaker. Has science buried God?
|publisher=Lion Hudson
|location=Oxford, England
|year=2009
|pages=53
|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=yiTvBXHZwpwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=God%27s+undertaker&hl=sk&sa=X&ei=jj7-UeHxNorb4QSV2oHICg&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=%22only%20religion%22&f=false
|isbn=978-0-7459-5371-7
|quote=He proved that one of the statements that cannot be proved in a sufficiently strong formal system is the consistency of the system itself...we can only believe...}}</ref>
* '''Organisational definition''': Under the definition, the term refers to a particular religious organisation or movement, such a [[Roman Catholic|Catholicism]], [[Methodist|Methodism]], or [[Lutheran]]ism. These groups generally consist of a central creed or body of beliefs, an ethical component (i.e. a code of morals), a body of literature or holy texts or stories, and a set of individual and communal practices. Under this definition, a person might say, "I'm not religious, because I don't go to church—but I believe in God."
* '''Practical definition''': Under this definition, the term refers to a set of practices, rites, or rituals observed by followers. Under this definition, a person might say, "I'm not religious, because I'm not into rituals. My relationship with God is enough."

== List of religions ==
Religions can be classified according to how many gods the religion recognises.
=== Monotheistic religions ===

Monotheistic ("one god") religions are followed by a large proportion of the world's population.

* [[Bahai|Bahá'í]]
* [[Christianity]]
* [[Messianic Judaism]]
* [[Islam]]
* [[Jehovah's Witnesses]]
* [[Judaism]]
* [[Rastafari movement]]
* [[Sikhism]]
* [[Zoroastrianism]]

=== Polytheistic religions ===
Polytheistic ("many gods") religions believe in and worship multiple gods or spirits or other supernatural beings. Polytheism has declined since the rise of Christianity, but has seen a recent resurgence among pagan cults in developed nations.

* [[Cao Dai]]
* [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|Mormonism]]
* [[Paganism]]

* [[Shamanism]]
* [[Shinto]]
* [[Wicca]]

=== Pantheistic religions ===
Pantheistic ("all is god") religions believe that all of creation or nature is divine.

* [[Hinduism]]
* [[Jainism]]
* [[New Age]] beliefs

It is also worth noting the existence of 'Panentheism' and the importance of distinguishing it from Pantheism. Panentheism is the belief that God is ''in'' all things and is chiefly manifest in [[Animism]]. Nonetheless, Pantheism and Panentheism have also been shown to feature in some outlooks generally defined as 'Monotheistic' (cf. [[Baruch Spinoza]]).

=== Non-theistic religions and philosophies===
Non-theistic religions do not have a belief in God or gods. Some consider the existence of God to be unknown or irrelevant, while (strong) Atheism is the belief that asserts it is false.
* [[Agnostic]]ism
* Atheism
** [[Strong atheism]]
** [[Weak atheism]]
* [[Buddhism]] (though with elements of [[Polytheism]]. The ''devas'' that are found in a supporting role in the Tipitika are not strictly comparable to gods, as they are ultimately mortal.)
* [[Secular Humanism]]
* [[Scientology]] Has stories containing extraterrestrials though none are claimed to be divine.
* The [[Raelism|Raëlian Church]], base on the [[Ancient astronaut theory]].

=== Parody and joke religions ===
Several "religions" have been invented in an effort to denigrate or parody traditional religions. While most adherents of these "religions" are not serious believers, there are inevitably a few people who take the tenets seriously.

* [[Flying Spaghetti Monster|The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster]] - A joke religion created to parody Christianity
* [[Discordianism]] - More likely than the rest of these to be taken seriously, due to parallels with actual religions and a more unified philosophical view than the rest on this list.
* [[Jedi]] - Based on the Star Wars universe, best known for the Australian census prank where large groups of pranksters claimed to be Jedi adherents
* [[Last Thursdayism]] - Another joke religion aimed at parodying Christianity, specifically aimed at Young Earth Creationism
* [[Church of the SubGenius|SubGeniism]] - Parodies both aspects of Christianity and Scientology

== Faith in organised religion ==

The percentage of respondents answering they had a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in organised religion has decreased in the [[United States]] according to a [[Gallup]] poll taken in 2007. Only 46% of respondents selected either of the choices above. The numbers peaked at 68% in May 1975.<ref>Christian Examiner, Sept. 2007, Vol 25, No 9, Pg. 24</ref>

== Development of religion ==

Secular scholars and liberals, in order to justify their own postmodernist ideal that religious faith is a subjective issue, all religions are equally valid, there are no absolutes and consequently morality is relative, tend to take an evolutionary approach to the development of religion in human societies.

They usually suscribe to the idea that religion first started off as a primitive form of Animism or Spirit Worship, then evolved into polytheistic tribal/national religions, and then from one of these religions emerged Zoroastrianism which saw a gradual decrease in its number of gods until it eventually was transformed into a monotheistic religion, which in turn evolved into the well organized, theologically complex and philosophically deep monotheistic faiths of today such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

This idea regarding the development of religion continues to appear in liberal publications, despite the fact that it has little real substantiation and is merely an assumption by liberal scholars, who often hold a certain kind of prejudice towards organized religion.

In reality, the exact opposite viewpoint has more substantiating anthropological evidence. Namely, the viewpoint that Monotheism (faith in one sole creator deity) was the original form of religion, but gradually corrupted until it fragmented into various polytheistic religions, which in turn decayed further giving rise to pantheistic and atheistic religions.

For example, expert egyptologist Flinders Petrie suggests there is sufficient archaeological evidence to conclude that the religion of the ancient Egyptians, which is normally categorized as a typical polytheistic religion, was not originally polytheistic, but in fact a monotheistic faith, which only in the later years of the Egyptian empire shifted from monotheism to polytheism.

similarly, doctor Steven Rangdon of Oxford University based on his research of ancient Babylonian inscriptions concludes that the ancient Babylonian religion like the ancient Egyptian religion was also originally monotheistic, and only in the later stages of the Babylonian civilization did it start to transform into a polytheistic and idolatrous religion. Interestingly, this was also the case with the ancient Sumerian religion. The Sumerians believed in over 5000 gods at the time of the end of their civilization. At the start of their history, however, they only worshiped one god, the god of the sky. It is more than likely that the Sumerian god of the sky is the same God of the heavens of the Hebrew Bible.

Interestlingly, this trend can also be seen in far Eastern religions. Shinto (神道), a native polytheistic religion of Japan which now believes in the existence of thousands of deities, was in fact originally a religion with only three gods. As time passed, however, the religion started to fall into a state of decay as believers started to arbitrarily created more and more new gods of their own. The further one goes back in Japanese history the number of gods in Shinto lessens significantly. In addition, some Japanese scholars, for example evangelical theologian Kubo Arimasa, postulate that it is possible that Shinto was in fact originally monotheistic, and the three originals gods described in the opening of the oldest known Shinto text ''Kojiki'' were, in fact, originally one creator God, identical to the creator of the Old Testament.

This monotheism → polytheism → pantheism religion curruption hypothesis is also in concordance with the scriptures of the Old Testament which tells explicitly that the origin of polytheistic, idolatrous and pagan religions was the rebellion of sinners who sought to free themselves from the laws of the true creator, the Lord Yahaweh.

== Academic studies consistently challenge link between religion and war ==

''See also:'' [[Irreligion/religion and war]]

Louise Ridley (assistant news editor at the ''Huffington Post UK''), [[Vox Day]] and others point out that academic studies and other research consistently challenge the link between religion and war.<ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/11/14/religions-war-cause-responsible-evidence_n_6156878.html Does Religion Really Cause War - And Do Atheists Have Something To Answer for?] by Louise Ridley, assistant news editor at the Huffington Post UK</ref><ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/08/atheists-abandon-religion-causes-war.html Atheists abandon "religion causes war" argument]</ref>

== See also ==

*[[Christianity and social stability|Religion and social stability]]
*[[Nones]]

==References==
<references/>

==See also==
*[[World Religions by Number of Followers]]
*[[Religion and morality]]
*[[Christianity in Conservapedia]]
*[[Essay:Abuse of religion]]
*[[Conservatism and religion]]
*[[Religious criticism]]
*[[Revelation, Book of (historical exegesis)]]

==External links==

*[http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/12/why-religion-matters-even-more-the-impact-of-religious-practice-on-social-stability Why Religion Matters Even More: The Impact of Religious Practice on Social Stability] By Patrick F. Fagan, Ph.D.

*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/religion/ What Liberals Say - Category: Religion], [[Accuracy In Media]]
*[http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/is-there-a-god Opposing Views: Is There a God?]

{{Virtues}}

[[Category:Religion]]

Cosmological argument

2016-08-28T12:50:11Z

PeterHockey: Added more detail

The '''cosmological argument''' or first cause argument "is a philosophical argument for the existence of God which says that everything has a cause, therefore working back in time there must have been a first cause. This first cause was itself uncaused. The argument is that this first cause was by what we call [[God]]"<ref>[http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/cosmological-argument.htm Cosmological argument], AllAboutPhilosophy</ref> It is based on the principle of [[Cause and effect]]. However, not all effects have causes, leading some atheists to argue that the universe does not necessarily require a cause.

== Kalam cosmological argument ==
The aim of this argument is to show that the universe had a beginning in the finite past. The argument battles against the existence of an [[infinite regression]] of past events which implies a universe that has infinitely existed. This argument implies the existence of a [[First Cause]].

The form of the argument is:
# Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
# The universe began to exist.
# Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Note that the key phrase here is "''begins'' to exist". The question is not "whatever exists".

The atheistic counter argument has traditionally been to point 2, taking the position that the universe has always existed. It should also be noted that the Kalam argument removes one of the knee jerk reactions to any discussion on creation involving God which is "Then who created God?" Since God has no beginning, the question becomes meaningless. The Bible makes clear that God exists outside of our construct of time in many locations, including 1 Corinthians 2:7, 2 Timothy 1:9, and Titus 1:2.

== Thomas Aquinas and the cosmological argument ==
# What we observe in this universe is contingent (i.e. dependent, or conditional)
# A sequence of causally related contingent things cannot be infinite
# The sequence of causally dependent contingent things must be finite
Conclusion: There must be a first cause in the sequence of contingent causes

== Leibnizian cosmological argument ==
The argument comes from a German [[polymath]], Gottfriend Wilhelm Leibniz. Leibniz wrote, "The first question which should rightly be asked is this: why is there something rather than nothing?"

The argument runs as follows:
# Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own [[nature]] or in an external cause.
# If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
# The universe is an existing thing.
# Therefore, the explanation of the universe is God.

Some [[Atheism|atheists]] object to premise 2 in that God does not have to be the explanation, but that the universe can be what is called a necessary being (one which exists of its own nature and have no external cause). This was a suggestion of [[David Hume]] who demanded, "Why may not the material universe be the necessarily existent being?" (Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, part 9).
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is helpful. If Hume (and other atheists) is right in saying that the universe is a necessary being/thing, then this implies that the universe is eternal. This is exactly what the Kalam argument seeks to disprove. Thus, the Kalam is a valuable supplement to the Leibnizian argument.

== See also ==

*[[Arguments for the existence of God]]
*[[Atheism and the origin of the universe]]

== Notes ==
{{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}
[[Category:Theology]]

Miracle

2016-08-27T16:01:08Z

PeterHockey: Removed incorrect use of the gambler's fallacy as an argument against miracles

The first '''miracle''' by [[Jesus]] was at a [[heterosexual]] [[marriage]], as described at John 2:1. The miracle of the [[Resurrection]] is perhaps recorded in the [[Shroud of Turin]].

A '''miracle''' is defined by Merriam-Webster (2009) as:

: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs
: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment
: ''Christian Science'': a divinely natural phenomenon experienced humanly as the fulfillment of spiritual law

The Catholic definition of miracle is a "sensibly perceptible effect, surpassing at least the powers of visible nature, produced by God to witness to some truth or testify to someone's sanctity."<ref>John A. Hardon, S.J., "A Modern Catholic Dictionary" (1999).</ref>

Other definitions include:

: a remarkably good event that has no plausible scientific explanation
: an extremely unlikely occurrence consistent with [[faith]] or [[prayer]]
: a joyous happening contrary to all reasonable expectation
: "a violation of the laws of nature" ([[David Hume]])

Though the term "miracle" can often be heard from Christians and non-Christians alike, the entire [[Bible]] only contains one genuine reference to "miracle" and that was a quote of a non-believer (the Pharaoh) in Exodus 7:9 (RSV): "When Pharaoh says to you, 'Prove yourselves by working a '''miracle''',' then you shall say to Aaron, 'Take your rod and cast it down before Pharaoh, that it may become a serpent.'"

Under [[Christianity]] and [[Judaism]], God is truth and a miracle is nothing more than a "sign" of the truth. "Miracle" is the non-believer's term for what believers properly describe as a "sign", a term that does appear repeatedly in the [[Bible]]. The scholar [[Chad Walsh]] echoes [[C.S. Lewis]]—''Miracles: A Preliminary Study''(1947, Macmillan)—when he states that no other religion bases its ideas upon miracles as much as does Christianity. Its foundation is the [[Incarnation]].<ref>''C.S. Lewis: Apostle to the Skeptics'', Chad Walsh, Macmillian company, 1949, page 34</ref>

== Arguments against the Existence of Miracles ==

Skeptics would say that miracles are simply improbable stuff happening and because there are billions of people on the planet, the odds of finding numerous stories of improbable happenings interpreted as miracles increases.

The fact is in order for a skeptic to dismiss miracles, they must literally accuse thousands upon thousands of people of either lying, or hallucinating. The probability of 100 percent of the witnesses matching this description is questionable at best. One example would be the documented miracle at Fatima where thousands of people saw the sun explode and then come back together. Skeptics argue that no one outside the area of the town recorded this but this is using the logical fallacy that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Also, the probability of thousands of people lying needs to be called into question.

Some skeptics ask why God chooses not to cure amputees but this begins with the false assumption that God has never done this before. The fact is Jesus is historically documented in the Bible as reattaching an ear to a Roman soldier. Also, many of the lepers that Jesus chose to cure also had missing body parts. The amputee argument also ignores how losing a limb is not life-threatening. Also, if God chose to cure everyone then no one would ever die and God needs people to die so they can either be placed in Heaven or Hell. Another counter is that the amputee argument ignores the fact that God has inspired doctors to develop the technology for artificial limbs.
=== Studies confirming the efficacy of prayer for Christians ===

The Christian apologist [[Gary Habermas]] wrote: "Double-blind prayer experiments: where people pray for others with terminal illness. Habermas admitted that most such experiments have not worked, but the three that he knows of that have indeed worked were cases of orthodox-Christians praying for the sick."<ref>[http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-apologist-10-reasons-for-the-fall-of-atheism-106531/ Christian Apologist: 10 Reasons for the Fall of Atheism] by [[Gary Habermas]]</ref>

==List of miracles approved by the [[Congregation for the Causes of Saints]]==
*Stigmata (and other signs) of [[St. Francis of Assisi]]
*Prophecies and miraculous apparitions of [[Saint Bernadette|St. Bernadette]]
*Apparition of the [[Mary|Blessed Virgin Mary]] at Fatima on the 13th day of six consecutive months in 1917, starting on 13 May.
*Stigmata, bilocation, levitation and prophecy of [[Padre Pio|St. Pio of Pietrelcina]] (born Francesco Frocione)
*Blood miracle of [[St. Januarius]] (also known as St. Gennaro)
*The Virgin of the tears: 1953, Syracuse (Sicily) - A statue of the Virgin Mary produces real human tears.

== Atheists and supernatural beliefs ==

''See also:'' [[Atheists and supernatural beliefs]]

[[Atheism]], as defined by the ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', the ''[[Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]'', and other [[philosophy]] reference works, is the denial of the existence of [[God]].<ref>Multiple references:
*Smart, J. J. C. (August 8, 2011). [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism "Atheism and agnosticism"]. ''The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (Spring 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).
*Sarfati, Jonathan, Ph.D. (23 June 2007). [http://creation.com/atheism-is-more-rational "Atheism is more rational?"]. See [[Creation Ministries International]], [[Jonathan Sarfati]].
*Day, Donn R. (2007). [http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm "Atheism - etymology"].
*[http://www.reasonablefaith.org/definition-of-atheism Definition of atheism] by [[William Lane Craig]]
*[http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0131a.html Putting the Atheist on the Defensive] by Kenneth R. Samples, Christian Research Institute Journal, Fall 1991, and Winter 1992, page 7.
</ref> Beginning in the latter portion of the 20th century and continuing beyond, many [[agnosticism|agnostics]]/atheists have argued that the [[definition of atheism]] should be defined as a mere lack of belief in God or gods.
<ref name="Divine">Day, Donn R. (2007). [http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm "Atheism - etymology"].</ref><ref>[http://www.reasonablefaith.org/definition-of-atheism Definition of atheism] by [[William Lane Craig]]</ref>
<ref name="CRI">[http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0131a.html Putting the Atheist on the Defensive] by Kenneth R. Samples, Christian Research Institute Journal, Fall 1991, and Winter 1992, page 7.</ref> See also: [[Definition of atheism]]

[[Naturalism (philosophy)|Naturalism]] as a philosophical stance rejects the possibility of [[supernatural]] phenomena, describing such phenomena as misunderstood natural phenomena or falsehood. This preconception necessarily precludes the existence of God.

Although all [[Atheism|atheists]] deny the existence of [[God]], a significant portion of atheists do not strictly subscribe to the philosophy of naturalism (see: [[Atheism and the supernatural]]).

==See also==
*[[In the midst of a Maelstrom: the Holy Spirit and silence: an essay]] the quiet miracle
*[[Essay: How to "get" a church]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Christian Theology]]

Cause and effect

2016-08-26T13:47:18Z

PeterHockey: Added a bit more detail

'''Cause and effect''' is the basic principle of all action. A person makes a [[choice]] to move so as to have an [[effect]] in the world. Some choices are internal and therefore show no visible result, such as planning or repentance. Not all effects have a particular cause. One example of this is radioactivity, where an atom decays because it is unstable. However when it decays is random.

'''The law of causality''' or '''the law of cause and effect''' is a fundamental law of [[science]] telling us that whatever happens is caused.<ref>{{Cite book
| author = Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks
| year=1990
| title = When Skeptics Ask
| chapter = 10. Questions about Science and Evolution
|pages = 219–221
| isbn = 978-0-8010-7164-5
| url = http://books.google.no/books?id=hF24HwAACAAJ&dq=when+skeptics+ask&hl=en&sa=X&ei=imcgT7foFpPU4QS1m5yIDw&redir_esc=y
| accessdate = 25.1.2012
| publisher = Victor Books, Baker Books
}}</ref> Even the great [[skeptic]] [[David Hume]] stated ''"I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause."''<ref>{{Cite book
|author=David Hume
|title=Letters
|editor=J.Y.T. Greig
|publisher=Clarendon
|location=Oxford
|year=1932
|page=187
|volume=1
}}</ref>
[[Scientist]]s try to discover the [[causal association|cause and effect relationships]] among physical phenomenon. For example, a [[bee]] sting may cause swelling in a victim. Or the moon's [[gravity]] affects the [[tides]].

==Quotes on Cause and Effect==
[[Max Planck]]:<ref>{{cite book
|title=Where is Science Going?
|author=Max Planck; James Murphy
|publisher=Norton
|place=New York
|year=1932
|pages=66,121,143
|url=http://www.questia.com/read/525348/where-is-science-going
|access date=2012-10-23
}}</ref>
*''Hitherto '''the principle of causality''' was universally accepted as an indispensable postulate of scientific research, but now we are told by some physicists that it must be thrown overboard. The fact that such an extraordinary opinion should be expressed in responsible scientific quarters is widely taken to be significant of the all-round unreliability of human knowledge. This indeed is a very serious situation.''
*''[[Religion]] belongs to the realm that is inviolable before '''the law of causation''' and therefore closed to [[science]].''
*''The [[Quantum mechanics|quantum hypothesis]] will eventually find its exact expression in certain [[equation]]s which will be a more exact formulation of '''the law of causality'''.''

==See also==
*[[First cause]]

== References ==
{{Reflist}}
[[Category:Principles]]
[[Category:Philosophy of science]]

User:PeterHockey

2016-08-23T17:35:58Z

PeterHockey: Created page with "This is my user page"

This is my user page