Unanswered Questions in Science

1 Like

Are you making a point, Jim?

Not really. I thought it was an interesting article, but he doesn’t expand on any of the questions raised. It’s not really philosophy, but half the posts in the Philosophy forum seem to be about physics or science anyway. I was a little surprised to learn that there is some question as to the universal applicability of the “laws of nature.”

1 Like

Where is the Snowden of yesteryear???

Science is the Work of Man… and connects with Man’s Quest - to Know Everything…

  • Unanswered Questions?

  • Origin of Universe?

  • Origin of Life?

The Second Law most certainly doesn’t belong on that list. It’s just the natural result of statistical mechanics.

1 Like

Neophyte, I don’t believe your answer is correct. Boltzmann tried to derive the second law from stat mechanics and failed. The problem is basic laws of physics are reversible (t <—> -t) but Second Law takes account of irreversibility, “the arrow of time.” See “The Road to Reality” (Chapter 27) by Roger Penrose.
The Second law depends on highly constrained initial conditions.

1 Like

I saw a youtube video about Boltzman and then did some cheap lookups online about him. He was a genius but, as I recall, committed suicide.

I think there will always be unanswered questions in science. Science would end if there were no more questions. I dispute that one scientist on youtube who ends his videos with “physics is everything.”

1 Like

Exactly - Maths, for example, although utilized in Physics -
has zero connection with the Realm of Physics including:
Mass Energy Space Time Information, Love, Hatred, Et Cet

Two articles I just came across today are unanswered questions in science, at least so far.

“The Hubble constant: a mystery that keeps getting bigger,” The Guardian, 2 Nov. 19. (Two fundamental ways of measuring the Hubble constant are showing different answers.)

“An Evolution in the Understanding of Evolution - ‘Essentially, All Models Are Wrong,’” SciTechDaily, 2 Nov. 19. (In trying to measure protein evolution, the changes do not come out in a straight lineage. One scientist: “The reconstructions didn’t agree with each other,” he said, despite 1,000 attempts.)

Science studies creation. Properly, it affirms the Creator, rather than this very recent nonsense of attempting, via junk science, to deny Him.

God is Mystery. Thus, our spiritual knowledge of and relationship with Him is also mysterious. What is lacking in scientific knowledge is a reflection of the mysterious nature of God.

An anecdote: I was in a discussion with my research hematologist, who is atheist, having come from behind the iron curtain. I asked him is he could perform any research at all if the laws of physics constantly changed. He replied that the results would be absolutely meaningless. I pointed out that something or Some One had to both establish those laws and enforce them - in a universe which is constantly expanding and in a world which is constantly changing. Just planting seeds.


Mankind’s Most Important Scientific Discovery

I suppose I should make a thread for this post, but here it is anyway:
The Shroud of Turin was proven by photography in 1898 to be authentic, but the nature of its image formation was thought to be a natural process. The intensive gathering of evidence and analysis of the Shroud in 1978 proved that theory wrong.

The Shroud’s radiocarbon 14 evidence from 1988 revealed a much greater amount of C-14 than would be expected of relic proven to be 2000 years old. The only viable explanation for this is that the Shroud was exposed to a neutron radiation event which converted some of its nitrogen to C-14, and the only time that such an event could have taken place is when the corpse it enveloped vanished into another dimension.

The conclusion is that the Shroud is proof that Rabbi Yehoshua existed, was executed by crucifixtion, and that His corpse vanished into another dimension on the third day of His burial. In my opinion, this discovery is more important than any of the many other scientific findings and inventions of the human race.

I heard on the news last month something interesting about the shroud image.
A scientist studying the shroud said that it would require 34 trillion watts to make the same image on the shroud if we were to attempt. I think the most amazing thing is the fact that it is holographic and that the image actually depicts movement as if there was a strobe effect taking place during it’s creation.

That’s a good one. I’m gonna use that next atheist I meet!

If you have one proton and you have another proton then you have two protons. You can use different methods of counting but you still have two. It is inconceivable that that fact could be designed in some way. Just like God cannot create a square with three sides He cannot make one plus one equal anything other than two.

Four hydrogen protons make a helium nucleus. You can call helium and hydrogen and protons whatever you like. But when you have four of the one type combining you have one of the other. See above for the rest of the argument.

Rinse and repeat.

But who decided on a proton? Why a proton? Who decided to have one or more protons at center of each atom?

Sure there is - no protons. Or if use different positive particle at center each atom but only one not multiple. Lots of different design choices

That’s because geometry and mathematics are human creations to model nature, not God creations.

No, two protons and two neutrons make a helium nucleus.

If protons aren’t used but some other particle , then no more Hydrogen or Helium. Thus, all of the table of elements completely arbitrary based on God’s selection of building blocks. Same with Gods selection of laws of nature

The Shroud connects with the one Miracle (Resurrection) which some of His Day Denied.

It would be far far far easier today
to mess with and even destroy various evidences of and on the Shroud,
than it would be for Today’s Science to replicate it; were that even possible.

1 Like
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.