Scientific Theories and Laws

Some of my Christian brothers and sisters are skeptical of certain scientific theories that they believe somehow challenge the authority or veracity of the Bible. In my previous blog post, I quoted one Christian writer who doubted the scientific theory of quantum chromodynamics (QCD), the theory that describes the strong force that holds quarks together in neutrons and protons and ultimately holds the nucleus together. I stated that "QCD is a complex and tested mathematical theory that describes the strong nuclear force, or simply the strong force" and further remarked that my defense of QCD brings up an additional question of "What do scientists mean when they say that a theory is correct, or accurately describes a phenomena?" I will address questions of this type in this blog post.

Minimizing Bias in Experimental Particle Physics

The experiments at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN produce a total of about 90 petabytes of data per year. A relatively high-end desktop computer today may have a disk that can store about 1 terabyte of data, which means it takes the disk space of about 100,000 desktop computers to store the annual data collected by the CERN LHC experiments. The physics researchers who work at CERN use powerful computers to analyze this data. The goal of our analysis is always to learn more about the fundamental structure of the universe. We are particularly trying to probe aspects of nature that we do not yet fully understand and discover something that we do not yet know.

 

In very general terms, the analysis of our data can be divided into two very broad categories. The first category could be labeled "measurements" where we try to more precisely measure the value of some property of nature that we have already observed and for which we have a mathematical model that predicts what the measurement should reveal. If the measurements differ from expectations, then we have indirectly discovered something about nature previously unknown. The second category could be labeled "searches" where we actually search directly for a new undiscovered particle or a new undiscovered phenomena. Often, we are searching for something predicted by some proposed model of physics developed by a theoretical physicist. 

When looking for new phenomena it is vital that we do not introduce presuppositional ideas or bias into our experiments. It is well documented that human bias can subconsciously skew the experimental analysis. In my last blog post I mentioned that, "we go to great lengths to minimize any bias toward one conclusion or another, particularly when looking for some unknown phenomena or particle." A reader of my blog, Keith, asked a number of questions about how we minimize bias in our experiments.  The lengths we go to and the methods we use are quite informative and can have applications to other arenas in life where we want to come to some objective conclusions.

Sabbaticals, New Ideas, COVID, and The Good Place

It has been almost six months since I have written and posted anything on my blog. Thanks to many of you, my readers, who have sent me inquiries as to the reason why my blog has been dormant, expressing your appreciation for the content, and asking if, and when, I will be writing posts again. I really appreciate all the kind remarks so many of you have sent me over the last few months. 

First, I should say that I don't really have any unusual or profound reason for the drought of blog posts. After writing at least two posts per month for three years, I simply have fewer new ideas for what to write about and, therefore, less motivation to write, since so many of my ideas that relate science, reason, and logic, to Christianity have already been addressed in previous blog posts. In addition, as with any activity that is done for a long period of time, I had simply become a little fatigued with writing new posts week after week. I am a university professor and, in academics, professors are allowed to apply for a sabbatical every seven years in which they take a semester or two off from teaching in order to focus on research and creative activity and to generate new ideas and revitalize their creative endeavors. From my perspective as a professor then, maybe I just needed a short sabbatical from my blog activities to gain a revitalized perspective. I still am not sure what new thoughts and ideas I have to add to the many blog posts I have written over the last few years, but I will at least try to get back into the pattern of writing on a regular basis. As such, I appreciate any thoughts my readers may have on topics that could be addressed in this blog. 

As with so many people in the world right now, I have spent the last three months or so fairly sequestered in my house. Because my research is based at CERN laboratory in Geneva, Switzerland, but I live in Oklahoma and teach at the University of Oklahoma, my daily routine even before the COVID-19 pandemic consisted of spending a lot of time in video meetings and looking at data from the Large Hadron Collider using my local computer. So, actually my professional life lately while working from home has been quite similar to my professional life when working from the university buildings: writing and running computer code to analyze data and meeting with people and groups by video. However, my personal life has changed quite dramatically over the last few months. I have spent more time cooking at home and more time streaming video at home. 

My wife and I have watched more content from Netflix, Prime, Disney+ and other services than I ever thought I would in such a short time. And some of the content I have watched has even generated a few ideas for my blog. We have just finished watching all four seasons of the NBC show, The Good Place, and some of the themes and ideas explored in that show are pertinent to both physics and Christian thought. If you haven't seen the show I should warn you now that the rest of this post is full of spoilers. So if you don't want spoilers for The Good Place, you probably should stop reading now.

A Look Back and Forward: Top Posts Written in 2019

Three years ago, on December 30, 2016 I wrote my first blog entry that introduced this blog devoted to a discussion of science and biblical Christianity. I want to thank all of you who have been readers of my thoughts through these last three years.

The World Wide Web was actually invented in the same building as the office that I use when I am at CERN doing research. (The opening figure above shows the plaque posted in the basement hall commemorating the development of the World Wide Web.) Nevertheless, I am constantly amazed by the way that the Web has changed the world. Because of this remarkable invention, people from every corner of the globe can interact and share information. As a result I have readers from every continent on the earth and from a vast variety of countries with different political systems and religious backgrounds. I am grateful for all of you. If this blog has been beneficial to you I would ask that you continue to tell others about it and spread the word.

The front page of my blog has a section with the most viewed blog posts over the last year and over the life of the blog. I'd like to highlight the five top posts that were actually written during this last year. So here is a list of the most read blog posts that were written in 2019:

A Simulated Universe: Missing the Obvious

My children refer to many of my jokes as "dad jokes," a term that applies to the silly, kind of dumb humor common to us "older" dads. I do admit that my sense of humor was formed when I was a teenager in the 1970's and tends toward the kind of silly, ridiculous, sometimes witty gags typical of Monty Python, or maybe Peter Sellers in The Pink Panther movies. It may be embarrassing to admit that there are far too many Monty Python skits or Pink Panther dialogues that I can recite from memory and that will cause me to laugh out loud just thinking about them. Simply mention "the cheese shop" or "the staff interrogation" and I may launch into a poor British or French accent as I recite some of the "hilarious" dialogue. Given that you can tell a lot about a person from their particular sense of humor, there may be some of you who have now completely lost all respect for me as a scientist or as a human being. (That last line was meant as a joke and reflects my "dad joke" capabilities.)

Now most of the previous paragraph has nothing to do with this blog post. But in order to introduce the topic of this post I was trying to think of a situation where somebody completely misses the most obvious thing right in front of them, while focusing on other less favorable options. My mind wandered to a scene in the movie "The Return of the Pink Panther" where inspector Jacque Clouseau is reprimanding a "blind" beggar with an accordion and a "minkey" for a minor offense, while he is completely oblivious to a major bank robbery going on just behind him. Of course, I then had to watch the video clip of this movie scene on YouTube, which led me down a rabbit hole to a series of many other Pink Panther and Monty Python videos, (similar to the virtual reality rabbit hole I referred to in my last blog post, which does actually bring us to the subject of this entry.)

Here I follow up on my previous discussion about the hypothesis that we may live in a virtual reality universe rather than a physical universe. Such a scenario was proposed by the philosopher Nick Bostrom in his 2003 paper "Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?" More recently a video by "Inspiring Philosophy" based on a 2007 paper by the informational computer scientist Brian Whitworth titled "The Physical World as a Virtual Reality" presents the same idea. Previously, I focused on some of the scientific ideas presented in that paper and showed that Whitworth doesn't seem to fully understand the science and that he selectively applies just those scientific principles that he thinks supports his hypothesis. But the biggest flaw in Whitworth's argument is that he doesn't even consider the possibility that there is a transcendent God who created the universe. Because he is oblivious to this obvious possibility, he completely misses the best option regarding the true nature of our universe.

Do We Live in a Simulated Universe?

Some time ago a reader asked me to look at a video by "Inspiring Philosophy" that discussed whether or not our universe might only be a simulation so that we might actually live in a virtual reality universe rather than a physical universe. That video was based on a 2007 paper by the informational computer scientist Brian Whitworth titled "The Physical World as a Virtual Reality." The reader's question, the video, and the paper sent me on a prolonged investigation as I read various papers on this provocative notion that we live not in an actual physical universe, but in some kind of computer simulation. The modern form of this argument was proposed by the philosopher Nick Bostrom in his 2003 paper "Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?" It seems appropriate that I was sucked into the "rabbit hole" of the virtual reality hypothesis since one of the classic movies that proposed our world is just a computer simulation was the 1999 film The Matrix, which also referenced the Alice in Wonderland rabbit hole in the dialogue when Morpheus is about to reveal to Neo the truth about their simulated universe and he says, "You take the blue pill—the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill—you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes." This journey of mine investigating the rabbit hole of a simulated reality has taken some time and consequently, I have not written a blog entry in about a month.

In some sense I'm not sure that this post is warranted or relevant for my blog. The purpose of my blog is to discuss various aspects of the relationship between science, Christian faith, and objective thought. I don't believe that my investigation into this subject necessarily gives much insight or adds much to the many writings that discuss this idea. Most of the articles that I find persuasive actually debunk the idea that we are simply a simulated universe such as those by physicists Sean Carroll or Sabine Hossenfelder or by informational scientist Brian Eggleston, and you can follow the links by clicking those authors' names above to find good reasons to disregard the simulation idea. It seems to me that those who take the idea seriously are not so much the educated scientists, but popular tech figures like Elon Musk who has promoted and popularized the simulation idea. I tend to side with the vast majority of expert scientists who believe there is much more evidence against the idea that we live in a simulation, rather than the few computer scientists and popular figures who have promoted the idea as probable.

But since I have spent far too much time deep in the rabbit's burrow on this subject, I probably should devote some space here to discuss a few ideas and see if there is any way I can relate the subject to the broader theme of this blog: that of science and the Christian faith. Rather than focus on the philosophical aspect of the simulation hypothesis (after all, the modern resurgence of this idea came from a philosopher not a scientist), I will focus on some of the scientific aspects of the original video (which was actually entitled "Digital Arguments for God's Existence") and the paper by Brian Whitworth on which it was based. In my next blog post I will discuss some of Whithworth's assumptions that are biased, presumptuous, and erroneous, and show that once those assumptions are reconsidered, then the idea that there is a transcendent intelligent creator God actually best explains his data.

Formation of the Sun and Solar System

We as scientists do not fully understand all the details about the history of the universe or how the universe works. I don't think that statement would surprise anyone. Yet, some Christians will portray certain scientific proposals as being completely untrustworthy because there are certain processes and details we can't fully explain. Its as if I were to try to explain how an internal combustion engine works but because there are some details I don't understand you were to claim that my entire explanation is false.

In my previous post I quoted a reader who stated, "You did not address the supposed problems with Star Formation and Planet Formation and Moon Formation. Problems include: the Angular Momentum of our sun, the Accretion of gas clouds, and the Accretion of planets and moons. In line with this is the distant mature galaxies." This reader then directed me to a video on the web where a Christian who believes the universe is only a few thousand years old (a young earth creationist) brought up these and other supposed problems in an attempt to discredit the current scientific understanding of how stars, planets, and our solar system formed. The lecturer was implying that since there were some unsolved problems with our understanding of the formation of these objects, then the entire scientific proposal of star and solar system formation was unreliable. I disagree with the lecturer and the premise of the question. From my perspective it is possible that the overall big picture about a scientific process could be completely reliable and substantiated even if some of the details are not yet understood. I would think that most reasonable people would agree with me.

A New Particle Lurking?

In 1995 when I was a post-doctoral researcher at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) in California, the top quark was discovered by two experiments at Fermilab near Chicago. This was an exciting event, for the top quark was the sixth and last quark predicted by the standard model of particle physics and had been searched for since 1977 when the bottom quark was discovered. (Quarks come in pairs so when the bottom quark was discovered, which was the fifth known quark at the time, a sixth quark was predicted to also exist. For a brief discussion of quarks and the standard model of physics see a previous post about the top quark.)

A physicist who was collaborating on one of the experiments that discovered the top quark at Fermilab came to give a lecture at SLAC to explain the details of this significant discovery to a packed auditorium. When the presentation ended I was walking out of the auditorium with a graduate student and I remarked, "Wow, that was great. They discovered the top quark." The student replied, "No it wasn't great. It looks exactly what we expected to find." In that moment, I realized the graduate student was correct and had taught me a lesson about scientific inquiry. In general, the most significant discoveries are not those that are predicted based on what we already know, but rather those that are completely unexpected. Though the discovery of the top quark was extremely important in the field of particle physics, it was indeed, exactly what we had expected to find.

Even Darker

In 1929 Edwin Hubble made a discovery that revolutionized our understanding of the universe. He measured the relative velocity between our Milky Way galaxy and 46 other galaxies and observed that the galaxies were all moving away from each other. In addition, the farther apart the galaxies were from each other, the faster they were receding from each other. The most straightforward interpretation of this observation is that the universe is expanding. Subsequent observations have revealed that the galaxies are not simply moving away from each other, but that the fabric of space itself between the galaxies is actually expanding.

With the knowledge that the universe is expanding, scientists have wondered about the future of the universe. Will it expand forever? Will it eventually stop expanding and collapse in on itself? The answer to these questions depends partially on the amount of matter in the universe because every object in the universe is attracted to every other object by the force of gravity. Gravity should cause the expansion of the universe to gradually slow down and, if there is enough matter, to eventually stop and collapse. To illustrate this consider two plastic balls connected by a rubber band. If you were to hold one ball in your hand and throw the other ball outward, eventually the speed of the second ball would decrease as the rubber band stretched because the rubber band acts as an attractive force between the two balls. In the same way, the attractive force of gravity should be causing the expansion of the universe to slow down. Because the strength of gravity depends on how much matter is in the universe, if there is enough matter, the very strong attractive force should eventually cause the expansion to stop and the universe to collapse back in on itself. The attractive force of gravity should be slowing down the expansion of the universe. But that is not what is happening.

The Dark Side

In the 1920's a number of experiments observed that certain nuclei would decay by emitting a "beta" particle in a process called beta decay. Although the beta particle itself was shown to simply be an electron, the process of beta decay exhibited some strange and unexplained properties. In particular, the decay products did not conserve energy, momentum, or angular momentum. Up until that time, all known physical processes had conserved these three quantities. That is, the amount of energy, momentum, and angular momentum at the end of any process was exactly the same as the amount at the beginning of the process. However, beta decay seemed to violate these well known conservation laws. A number of explanations were proposed including the possibility that these conservation laws were not absolute. However, one explanation seemed much more simple and elegant. The physicist Wolfgang Pauli proposed that another particle was also emitted during beta decay along with the electron, but this other particle was nearly impossible to detect. For all practical purposes it was invisible to any experimental detectors of the time. Now it may seem crazy to postulate an unknown, nearly undetectable particle simply to preserve well-established laws of physics, but consider the genius of this idea. By simply proposing the addition of one unknown entity all of the problems with beta decay could be solved. Enrico Fermi named the unknown particle a "neutrino," or "little neutron" in Italian. It took about 25 years to experimentally confirm the existence of this particle, but eventually the neutrino was discovered in 1956. The simple but elegant introduction of a nearly undetectable neutral matter particle was the solution to multiple problems.

Today we have a similar situation to that of the 1920's. When we observe the cosmos we find that there are a number of problems that seem to violate well established laws of physics. Einstein's theory of general relativity, which describes how gravity works, is a remarkably successful theory with tremendous predictive power, but when we try to use that theory to explain certain observed effects, the theory doesn't quite work. For instance, when we watch how fast the stars in galaxies rotate about the galactic center we find that the outer part of the galaxy doesn't obey Einstein's theory if we assume that we can actually see all of the matter in the galaxy. (See the graph at the end of this blog post.) We also find that the large scale distribution of galaxies throughout the universe has some problems if we assume that we can observe all of the matter that is there. (See the opening figure of this blog post.) In addition, we know that gravity can actually bend the path of light, but the amount of bending we observe is much greater than what we would expect using the theory of general relativity and the amount of visible matter.

Looking for (the) God (Particle) in all the Wrong Places

I have talked with many skeptics who claim that they do not believe in God because he has not conclusively demonstrated his existence to them. When asked how God might demonstrate his existence to their satisfaction I usually get an answer that consists of some criteria in which God would do something so spectacular that his intervention could not be denied. A classic example is that if God would miraculously regrow the limb of an amputee then the skeptic would believe in God. I addressed this issue to some extent in my post titled "Extraordinary Claims and Extraordinary Evidence." I personally don't think that even such an extraordinary event would convince most skeptics of the existence of God. Would they actually have to see the limb as it grows back? Would they accept that the limb had grown back miraculously if a number of people including the person's doctor claimed that the limb was gone and now it is back?

Suppose I was to propose an experiment to test for God in which 1000 people prayed that a miracle would occur. Would that be a valid test for the existence of God? Actually, from a scientific perspective that could not, even in principle, be a valid test regardless of the results, either positive or negative, and could not be scientifically accepted. In any test involving a person with volition and the ability to make choices, the test is considered biased and invalid if the person knows she is being observed and can change her behavior to influence the test. In any test of God, he would know he is being tested and could change his behavior to influence the test. Consequently, regardless of the outcome of the test, it would be considered scientifically invalid.

Probing the God Particle

Almost six years ago headlines throughout the world declared the discovery of the "God Particle" at CERN's Large Hadron Collider (LHC). The name "God Particle" is not used by any physicists but is the popular name in the press for the particle that physicists call the Higgs Boson or simply the Higgs, named after Peter Higgs, one of the theoretical physicists that proposed its existence in 1964. In an earlier post, I discussed the discovery of the Higgs Boson and its significance within the standard model of particles and fields. Although the discovery of the Higgs made international news, there has been a lot of hard work that has been done since that discovery was made. In experimental particle physics the discovery of something new is often the easiest part of the process and the hard part is trying to really understand what has been discovered. Much of my research life since 2012 has been dominated by further studies of the properties of the Higgs Boson.

Why do physicists spend so much time and effort studying something that has already been discovered? What is the motivation and the expected outcome? There is a complex and comprehensive mathematical model of nature that particle physicists use. This model makes detailed predictions about what we should expect to find in our experiments. One of the most exciting possibilities is to discover something in the data that does not fit the models. When that happens, and the discovery can be confirmed and verified, it means that we have found something new that we did not know before. That is the most thrilling outcome for an experimental physicist. It is always nice to confirm something that has already been predicted. But it is even more exciting to find something not predicted and then have to figure out what previously unknown secret of nature has been discovered.

The Reports of the Death of String Theory may be Greatly Exaggerated

In a recent podcast, Dr. William Lane Craig discusses my blog post about the book The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow. In his remarks, Dr. Craig says that he is surprised by Hawking's reference to String Theory because String Theory seems to have some fatal flaws. I have heard from others that String Theory has not lived up to the promise it seemed to show about 10 or 20 years ago. In this post, I will describe what String Theory is, why some people think it may be in trouble, and some theological implications of String Theory.

String Theory is a theoretical idea in physics that proposes that the most fundamental objects in the universe are one-dimensional objects called strings. In String Theory, the fundamental particles that we currently know make up the structure of the universe including leptons, quarks, and bosons, are composed of one-dimensional objects that are described as vibrating strings. Just as different vibrational modes of a guitar string will give different musical tones, so the different vibrating modes of the strings give rise to different particles.

A Transcendent God: Part 2

It is difficult to even begin to comprehend a God who is truly transcendent. We humans are constrained by the three dimensions of space and one dimension of time that we inhabit, so we tend to greatly underestimate the capabilities of a being who is not bound by these dimensions. In "A Transcendent God: Part 1" I used the book Flatland by Edwin Abbott as an illlustration to help us understand God's transcendence. The book describes a universe that is flat like a piece of paper and has only two dimensions, and the attempts made by a three-dimensional being to communicate with the Flatlanders. This analogy demonstrated that (1) it would be impossible for us to fully understand any being outside of our dimensions, and (2) we could only be aware of a transcendent being if he chose to reveal himself to us. These two conclusions definitely apply to God.

Let's look at a few other characteristics of God that are elucidated by the Flatland analogy.

A Transcendent God: Part 1

Scientific observations have led to the conclusion that the space, time, matter, and energy of our universe came into existence about 13.8 billion years ago. Thus, the cause of our universe must be transcendent, not a part of this physical universe, as I have stated several times in this blog such as here, here, and here. Therefore, these scientific discoveries give corroborating evidence for a transcendent God as described in the Bible.

Although Christians believe in a transcendent God and the existence of a transcendent God is supported by the scientific evidence, I find that most people, both believers and unbelievers, have a very poor understanding of the characteristics of a transcendent being. Many of the questions I hear from atheists about God are framed in a context that completely ignore his transcendence. Many of the problems that people have about how God interacts or doesn't interact in our world arise apart from an acknowledgement or understanding of the ramifications of God's transcendence. As a scientist I may have some insight into some of the characteristics of a transcendent being and how that might affect our understanding of God's interaction with us finite beings.

Should We Be Here?

Why are we here? That question could be answered from many perspectives including philosophical, theological, and scientific. From a scientific perspective we are here partly because the early universe had an excess of matter over antimatter. If the amount of matter and antimatter had been identical, their interactions would have annihilated both, resulting in a universe with energy but no matter, so we would not be here. Physicists have been investigating why there is excess matter in the universe, and in particular, if there is a discernible difference between matter and antimatter. When a recent very precise measurement at CERN found no difference in a certain property of matter and antimatter, the headlines across the globe, such as in Cosmos, Space.com, and The New York Post, proclaimed "The Universe Shouldn't Exist."

A New Particle Discovered at CERN

About a week ago, an experiment at CERN announced the discovery of a new particle, the Ξ_cc⁺⁺ (pronounced Ksigh-see-see-plus-plus). Many people who have read about this discovery have asked me about its significance and if I was involved. So, this post will deviate from the usual discussion of the relationship between Christianity and science and focus on the discovery of the Ξ_cc⁺⁺ with a few additional observations in my conclusion.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics: An excerpt from the Dictionary of Christianity and Science

On April 25, 2017, Zondervan will publish the Dictionary of Christianity and Science. This is the definitive reference book discussing the intersection of Christian faith and contemporary science.  It has been a project that has taken over five years to complete. The four general editors, Paul Copan, Tremper Longman III, Christopher L. Reese, and myself have worked with over 100 outstanding contributors and our amazing editor, Madison Trammel, to bring this book to fruition.

There are a few features of this book that separate it from other such works. While most articles in the dictionary are unbiased, for topics that are controversial among Christians, the Dictionary presents various advocacy articles with opposing views. For instance, different views on evolution and the length of the days of creation are included. These articles represent the viewpoint of the author and are not completely unbiased. This multiple presentation model serves as a great resource for each reader to understand the complexities of the issue and come to his or her own conclusions.

Most of the articles in the Dictionary relate the particular subject to some aspect of Christian thought. For instance, articles on Special Relativity or Conservation of Energy have a concluding paragraph that mentions how some aspect of that subject relates to the character of God. This feature that explicitly discusses the intersection of science and faith distinguishes this reference book from others.

I have written 22 of the 450 or so articles. If you preorder the Dictionary you will get a number of bonus features including a presentation slide deck discussing String Theory which includes one of the articles I wrote on that subject. As an introduction to the Dictionary the rest of this post reproduces the entry I have written on the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This reprint is copyrighted by Zondervan and the four general editors and is used by permission. At the end of this article I briefly discuss the relationship of the second law of thermodynamics to biological evolution. I want to point out that I am not advocating for evolution but just stating facts regarding whether or not evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.

A Small Big Universe

The universe is unfathomably large. Our galaxy, the Milky Way, is made of around 200,000,000,000 stars and there are about 200,000,000,000 galaxies in the visible universe. The Milky Way galaxy is about 100,000 light years across, which is  9.5 × 10¹⁷ km (6 × 10¹⁷ miles). (A light year is the distance light travels in a year which is 9,500,000,000,000 km or 6,000,000,000,000 miles.) We can see galaxies that are so far away it has taken about 13 billion years for their light to reach us.  Since the universe is expanding, those galaxies have continued to recede away from us during the time it took their light to reach us. So the present size of the known universe is approximately 93,000,000,000 light years across in all directions. That is, the universe we can see is now a sphere about 9 × 10²³ km (6 × 10²³ miles) in diameter. We talk about the "visible" or "known" universe because that is all of the universe we can see. We have no idea how large the universe is beyond that.

It is impossible to understand how big this is. Consider something much smaller, the distance to the nearest star which is about 4.3 light years away. If we could travel to that star at about the same speed as the Apollo astronauts traveled to the moon, it would take almost 1 million years to get there. That is just to the closest star in our galaxy! Even if we could travel at the fastest speed of any object ever created by humans it would take about 30,000 years to reach the nearest star.  You can do the math, but even at that extreme speed it would take 700,000,000 years to cross our galaxy.

The World at CERN

And now for something completely different...  The main focus of this blog is to discuss issues relating science and reason to Christianity and God.  However, I have spent the last week at CERN attending meetings, talking with people, trying to develop computer code to analyze data, and other such activities.  So I'm going to take this opportunity to talk about how experimental particle physics research is done within large collaborations like those at CERN.

I am a member of the ATLAS collaboration.  ATLAS is the name given to both the detector that we use to analyze data from proton-proton collisions at the Large Hadron Collider and the group of scientists who use the data from that detector to try to understand the fundamental particles and forces in the universe.  There are currently about 5000 scientists from about 180 institutions in 38 countries who are members of the ATLAS collaboration, with 1200 of those scientists being students working toward their Ph.D.  It takes that many people to operate the ATLAS detector and to analyze all of the data that we take with the detector.