Physics and Faith

Our Divine Creator

noreply@blogger.com (Physics and Faith) — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 22:06:40 PDT

A renowned scientist testifies of our premortal life, our divine Creator, and the limitless perspective of eternal life.

(from http://lds.org/pages/we-lived-with-god?lang=eng)

The distribution of free will

noreply@blogger.com (Physics and Faith) — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 22:53:42 PDT

O how great is the nothingness of the children of men; yea, even they are less than the dust of the earth. For behold, the dust of the earth moveth hither and thither, to the dividing asunder, at the command of our great and everlasting God.
- Helaman 12:7-8

If people understood true philosophy—eternal philosophy, they would understand that there is an eternity of matter. Astronomers estimate that there is between us and the nearest fixed star matter enough from which to organize millions of earths like this. There is an eternity of matter, and it is all acted upon and filled with a portion of divinity. Matter is to exist; it cannot be annihilated. Eternity is without bounds, and is filled with matter; and there is no such place as empty space. And matter is capacitated to receive intelligence.
- Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, volume 7.

Life in various proportions, combinations, conditions, etc., fills all matter. ... There is life in all matter, throughout the vast extent of all the eternities; it is in the rock, the sand, the dust, in water, air, the gases, and, in short, in every description and organization of matter, whether it be solid, liquid, or gaseous, particle operating with particle.
- Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, volume 3.

The two theories that revolutionized physics in the twentieth century, relativity and quantum mechanics, are full of predictions that defy common sense. Recently, we used three such paradoxical ideas to prove “The Free Will Theorem” (strengthened here), which is the culmination of a series of theorems about quantum mechanics that began in the 1960s. It asserts, roughly, that if indeed we humans have free will, then elementary particles already have their own small share of this valuable commodity.
- John H. Conway and Simon Kochen, "The Strong Free Will Theorem," Notices of the American Mathematical Society, February 2009.

(emphasis added)

I came across an article about the free will theorem some time ago and it made me think of this passage of scripture and these statements by Brigham Young. Thanks to Kamil for reminding me of the article.

Re: Truth is Truth

noreply@blogger.com (Physics and Faith) — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:56:37 PDT

I realized that I made the error of not giving any examples in my original post. While it can be a little shady, I think we all have a pretty good idea of what truth is in the context of physics. The idea of religious truth is a bit harder to get everyone to agree on. I kind of cringe at the phrase "religious truth"—what I'm trying to point to is something more than religion, but I'm not sure what phrase to use instead. In an LDS context, "gospel truth" would work pretty well, but I think the best phrase to use is "spiritual truth"—it's not quite right, but it will have to do for now. Spiritual truth, then, is something that's a bit more vague. When I was a missionary in Thailand, almost every day someone, in response to us inviting them to learn about our church, would tell us "ศาสนาทุกศาสนาสอนให้เราเป็นคนดี," which translates as "every religion teaches us to be good people." For these people, all religions are true, because they all teach good moral precepts. I see other people who judge how true a faith is by how well it meshes with their own beliefs and feelings. I hope an example will clear up what I meant to refer to when talking about truth in the context of religion.

In 1820, Joseph Smith was fourteen years old and was living in Palmyra, New York. It was a time of religious revival, and he was frustrated by the competing claims of the various denominations that their teachings were correct. Wanting to know which sect he should join, he turned to the Bible and was struck by the direction given by James to those who lack wisdom: ask God (James 1:5). He went out into the woods to pray. As he prayed, two glorious persons--God and Jesus Christ--appeared before him. After Joseph gained his composure, he asked which sect he should join and was directed that he should not join any of them. Three years later, he again prayed for guidance and was visited by an angel, who told him about a record engraven on golden plates that was buried not far from his home, and four years later he was allowed to retrieve the plates. He subsequently translated the engravings through inspiration and the record was published as the Book of Mormon in 1830. That same year Joseph Smith, acting under divine instruction, established the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I believe that I know all of this to be true. From my point of view these events either happened, or they didn't. Either God lives and is a glorified personage, or He doesn't and isn't. Either the only way for us to be freed of our sins and become like God is through the atonement of Jesus Christ, or it isn't. Either the Book of Mormon is an ancient record translated through divine assistance, or it's a fraud. I don't see how it's possible to take the middle ground on any of these, besides ignoring them altogether.

There are going to be varying ways in which people choose to respond to these assertions and integrate them into their lives. While the right way to do so may be somewhat subjective, the truth or falsehood of these statements is still objective. Likewise, just because people follow different religious beliefs doesn't mean that they are all equally true (or, more logically, all equally false). (There are some interesting theological issues that come up with this, but suffice it to say that our faith teaches that God is just and no one will be condemned for following the truth that they have.) Going back to physics, just because two research groups measure different values for a fundamental constant doesn't mean that they're both equally wrong, or that the constant isn't in fact a constant.

I guess part of the point that I was trying to make in the original post is that I believe that there is objective truth about God and about what we must do to achieve our highest potential, and that much of this can be reduced to kernels of truth. The truth of these things is just as real as the truth of physics principles, the only difference being that we can't use particle accelerators and torsion balances to test them—we have to test them spiritually.

A friend of mine has done a much better job than I could do at addressing this and related topics on his blog at http://thinkersaccord.blogspot.com/, so go give it a read.

Truth is Truth

noreply@blogger.com (Physics and Faith) — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 09:00:52 PDT

How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant?' Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.' A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge.
- Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot (1994).

I recently came across this quote taken from a book by Carl Sagan, the late eminent astronomer and astrophysicist. It made me start thinking about the "stress[ing of] the magnificence of the universe" within my own faith, and, by association, my faith's relationship with science and how my immersion in the world of science meshes with my personal faith. Pretty sad that I start a blog called "Physics and Faith," and it takes me two years to start approaching that very topic, but it's a meaty issue and I haven't been sure I could do it justice, so I've kept putting it off. I'm now quite sure that I can't (do it justice), but giving it a shot is arguably better than languishing in procrastination. I wish that I could fit everything in that I've wanted to write about, but I think it's better that I address a key concept here: truth.

I am interspersing this essay with scripture references. Some are embedded as part of the narrative, and some are here because they seemed to fit. The stereotypical Mormon talk in church begins with a definition of the term being discussed, usually taken from Merriam-Webster. I turn instead to the Doctrine and Covenants.

And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.
- D&C 93:24-25

Mention of truth is prevalent in our faith. We speak of knowledge and testimony, and one of my favorite hymns that we sing is titled "Oh Say, What is Truth?"

. . .
Yes, say, what is truth? 'Tis the brightest prize
To which mortals or Gods can aspire;
Go search in the depths where it glittering lies
Or ascend in pursuit to the loftiest skies.
'Tis an aim for the noblest desire.
. . .
Then say, what is truth? 'Tis the last and the first,
For the limits of time it steps o'er.
Though the heavens depart and the earth's fountains burst,
Truth, the sum of existence, will weather the worst,
Eternal, unchanged, evermore.
- Oh Say, What is Truth?, Hymn 272

(I have to admit that this hymn is a favorite because the tune sounds like a sea shanty, it refers to truth as a treasure, and it is particularly suited to being sung in a gruff voice. I refer to it fondly as the pirate hymn.)

The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.
- D&C 93:36

The concept of truth is inherent in our faith. The genesis of the LDS Church is rooted in the story of a fourteen-year-old boy who wanted to know which church was true. If I haven't gotten the point across yet, I really want to stress that, from my view, the importance of truth is reiterated throughout our faith. I don't know if this is particular to our faith. I wish I knew more about how other faiths approach truth.

Knowledge of truth is not just important, it is essential. My colleagues in science and my friends at church would agree with this. We need it, now how do we get it?

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
- 1 Thes. 5:21

Here is where I turn to science. I'm having a hard time defining it as I try to write this, so I'll try to approach it by first defining a subset of science with which I am more familiar: physics. In physics we try to determine the laws that govern the interaction of matter and energy. We do this by using the laws we know (mathematics included), along with accepted methods of analysis, to probe existing theories and hypotheses and develop new ones. By extension, the goal of science, in one sense of the word, is to determine the laws that govern nature. In another sense of the word, science is any knowledge gained from the scientific method. Though it doesn't always follow the nicely rote pattern with distinct steps I learned in seventh-grade science class, the scientific method consists of starting with a hypothesis, designing a proper experiment to test it, performing the experiment, and analyzing the results. For a result to be accepted, the experiment must be repeatable: performing the same experiment must produce the same results. A good scientific paper about an experiment describes the experiment and the results so that a reader, were he so inclined and capable, could reproduce the experiment and reproduce the results. Scientists have lost their jobs and their reputations for being too hasty to publish results that were not reproducible or did not follow from good scientific methodology. Conversely, theoretical suggestions that were disregarded by the general community have been validated and accepted due to experimental verification following the scientific method. The scientific method is how we show that truth is indeed truth.

It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance.
- D&C 131:6

Science and religion are often erroneously presented as opposites. The question is sometimes asked, "How can one be a scientist and be religious?" I think there are two types of answers that someone could give, depending on how they approach their faith. One would be that they believe that their religion, despite contradictions with science, serves a good purpose—it teaches men to be good and to love their brother, etc. The second response would be that they believe their faith to be true. I fall into the second camp. It would be intellectually dishonest for me to continue to be part of a faith that makes such claims of the importance of truth without me believing that it was true. In fact, I go farther than stating belief. I claim that I know that the teachings of my faith are true.

How did I gain this knowledge? In years past I may have given different summaries of how I came to this knowledge, touching on a few key experiences. I would probably mention one or both of two scriptural passages, both from the Book of Mormon. I recently realized that these passages both invite the reader to engage in the scientific method. In effect, they are short scientific papers in which the author presents some bit of truth and the method by which they came to know it, then invites the reader to follow the procedure to receive the same results.

One passage is in the Book of Alma, Chapter 32, and even uses the word "experiment". This passage is part of an account of Alma, a prophet who is preaching to a group of people called the Zoramites.

Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.

But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.
- Alma 32:26-27

Alma goes on to how to explain how the listeners (and readers) can discover for themselves if what he is preaching is true. After one's desire to believe gives place for his words, and if the words are true, they will begin to "enlighten [one's] understanding," and the desire to believe can progress to faith and then to knowledge. He uses a metaphor of planting a seed, saying that if it is a good seed (or the word is true), it will grow into a tree (knowledge). I'll invite you to go read the rest of the chapter at the link above rather than post it here.

How is this an invitation to apply the scientific method? Alma is presenting us with something that he claims to know to be true, and telling us how to prove it for ourselves. He has published an experimental paper with some extraordinary claims. Unless you have evidence that his experiment is faulty, you must perform the experiment if you want to truly know for yourself if his words are true.

Now I realize that this account is a bit abstract, and it's connection to the scientific method might seem a bit tenuous. The second passage is much more straight-forward, and it is short enough to post here. The passage is from the Book of Moroni, Chapter 10, which is the last chapter and effectively the epilogue of the Book of Mormon. Moroni, the last contributor to the Book of Mormon, is sharing his last words to the reader before sealing up the book.

Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
- Moro. 10:3-5

Moroni presents the claim that the Book of Mormon is true and also the experimental method for testing his claim: to ask God with real intent if the Book of Mormon is not true. You might notice that he says specifically to ask if it is not true. Why is it worded this way? I may be off on this, but I think it's because that there is already a basis for believing that the Book of Mormon is true. The Book of Mormon is prefaced by a signed 1830 statement by the Three Witnesses saying that God's voice had declared the truth of it unto them and a statement by the Eight Witnesses that they had seen and handled the golden plates from which it was translated. There are internal textual evidences of the book's veracity, and there are the fruits of the book to serve as further evidence. To those for whom these evidences have aroused a desire to believe, as Alma called it, Moroni presents the method for determining the truth for their own selves. Someone who wants to know whether the book is true must read it, ponder it, and ask God sincerely and with real intent, being committed to accept the answer they will receive, to manifest the truth to them. Moroni promises that if you follow this method, you will receive his results.

This is how I know that God lives and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is truly His church. The wonders of nature are evidences to me that there is a beneficent Creator, but they are not why I know that He lives. The good effects that the Gospel of Jesus Christ has on my life and the good fruits brought forth from the teachings the Book of Mormon strengthen my faith and have an important role in my life, but that is not why I know that they are true. The wise men who serve today as prophets give wise and reassuring counsel, but that is not why I know that God speaks to them. I know these things because I have tested Moroni's claim and experiment, and I have planted the word in my heart, as Alma instructed. I have undertaken their experiments and I have received knowledge for myself, via the Holy Ghost, that God lives, that He is our Father, that Jesus Christ is our Savior, and that the Book of Mormon is true.

Making a difference

noreply@blogger.com (Physics and Faith) — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:32:26 PST

The other night I did a Google News search for "mormon" and was surprised by the title of an Associated Press article that had just been published. It was titled "Mormon church blames powder hoax on gay activists." I had read the powder hoax coverage pretty closely, and had read the press release from the Church earlier that day (here), which, while it did blame "opponents of Proposition 8" (not "gay activists") for recent vandalism, hadn't even referred to the powder incidents at the two temples. I read through the article, and while it seemed that the reporter was referring to this press release, he did not offer an substantiation of the claim made in his title or in the opening paragraph of the article.

I decided to send an email to the AP, and then, thinking that the email might take a while to make it to the right person, decided to try calling the number on the AP website. It was probably about midnight Eastern time, but someone answered the phone and immediately transferred me when I asked how I would go about reporting an error. My call was picked up by a national news desk editor. I told him what I was calling about, and he told me that he'd edited the article and had asked the reporter point-blank if the Church had actually assigned blame for the powder attacks. He asked if I had access to the Church's statement from that day, and I gave him the URL for the Church Newsroom website. He took down my name and phone number and said he'd take a look at it.

When I ran the same Google search about half an hour later, a new article showed up in place of the old one, with the title "Mormon church condemns gay activists for 'attacks'", and some changed wording in the first paragraph. It's still kind of odd that they put the word "attacks" in quotes, given that it was only used in the press report in the sentence "Attacks on churches and intimidation of people of faith have no place in civil discourse over controversial issues," and not in an actual assertion of blame or condemnation.

While the original article is still accessible on ~1800 web sites, according to Google, the new one is has ~19,000 occurrences, so I'm glad that the semi-fixed one has been used more. Success!

The LDS Church and Section 501(c)(3)

noreply@blogger.com (Physics and Faith) — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:51:01 PST

A number of web sites opposed to the passage of Proposition 8 in California, such as http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/, are claiming that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has violated its tax-exempt status by supporting the proposition. They quote a provision of the Internal Revenue Code section 510(c)(3) (26 U.S.C. § 501(c)), which says the following organizations qualify as exempt (emphasis added):

Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

The critics of the Church claim that the Church's involvement in the Prop. 8 issue is a substantial activity, and as such, the Church should not qualify for tax exemption. Unfortunately, these critics are misreading the Code. What it says is that "no substantial part" of the organization's activities can be involved in influencing legislation. There is a huge difference between what the Code says and what the critics want it to say. Anyone familiar with the Church's activities throughout the world should recognize that the involvement of the Church in the Prop. 8 issue is minuscule compared with even its non-ecclesiastic projects, such as humanitarian work and education.

LDS Newsroom - Mistakes in the News: Associated Press Errors More Than Semantics

noreply@blogger.com (Physics and Faith) — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 07:27:01 PDT

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/mistakes-in-the-news-associated-press-errors-more-than-semantics

This recent commentary posted on the Newsroom website of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints really zings the AP and one reporter in particular for "fail[ing] to provide readers with a clear and entirely accurate story." Here's one excerpt:

The article later states that Chad Hardy, the calendar’s creator, was excommunicated by leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for producing this year's calendar. However, Dobner was not present at the time of Hardy’s excommunication, nor did she participate in deliberations leading to this action and consequently can’t definitively draw such conclusions. Indeed, an article by the Associated Press published 14 July 2008 by the Deseret News reads, “regional church leaders who called the meeting raised three concerns with Hardy during the meeting: the calendar and his failure to keep some church covenants.”

I haven't found any reaction to this yet in the media or from the AP, but I'm interested to see if anything comes of it.

BELFAST TELEGRAPH - What if Mormons are right and Catholics and Protestants wrong?

noreply@blogger.com (Physics and Faith) — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 00:05:50 PDT

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/eamon-mccann/eamonn-mccann-what-if-mormons-are-right-and-catholics-and-protestants-wrong-13955402.html

This article compares the practice of baptisms for the dead with practices in other religions--and asks why anyone cares about it. It's a bit tongue-in-cheek at times, but a fairly-written article.
I think, in light of common misrepresentations, that it's important to clarify that the practice is baptism for the dead and not of the dead. According to LDS doctrine, a proxy ordinance is only valid if the deceased chooses to accept it. From the second link below,

Any rite performed in a Latter-day Saint temple on behalf of a deceased person, who yet lives as a spirit being, is a rite of offering only, exacting no forced compliance nor acceptance of the rite. There is no imposed change of identity, heritage or religious belief, nor is the individual’s name added to the membership rolls of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

This work (and it is hard work to research the necessary genealogical information as well as manage the facilities and records, in addition to performing the ordinances) is done as a labor of love--to give people who have passed away the chance to receive ordinances that are, we believe, integral to their eternal salvation.

More information is available at

Any questions?

The Church sends a letter to the media

noreply@blogger.com (Physics and Faith) — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:59:09 PDT

Today the Newsroom site of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (http://newsroom.lds.org) posted a letter sent out two days ago "from Elder Lance B. Wickman, General Counsel of the Church to publishers of major newspapers, TV stations and magazines."

The letter is available at http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/media-letter.

I found this part interesting:

Specifically, we have obtained registrations for the name “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” “Mormon,” “Book of Mormon” and related trade and service marks from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and corresponding agencies in a significant number of foreign countries.

This sentence and the fact that this letter is being sent out by the General Counsel (the chief lawyer, for those unfamiliar with the term) of the Church makes me wonder if the Church might pursue legal avenues is ensuring that the term "Mormon" and other references to the Church are used appropriately. I'm not sure what legal basis there might be for that--there aren't any trademark infringement issues involved, but perhaps a libel case could be brought if a news outlet is negligent in adhering to the guidelines. Any thoughts on this are welcome in the comments.

On a related note, the Newsroom also released material today, at http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-seeks-to-address-public-confusion-over-texas-polygamy-group, that serves to clarify the difference between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), and the polygamist groups, such as the FLDS.

More bias in The Week

noreply@blogger.com (Physics and Faith) — Mon, 26 May 2008 00:10:45 PDT

I've commented on articles in The Week before being irresponsible (1, 2) but a recent one (http://www.theweekdaily.com/news_opinion/briefing/41181/briefing_married_to_a_mob.html), particularly the third paragraph, showed blatant bias and/or laziness--take your pick. For this one I didn't bother with posting a comment on the web page; other people had already done that. Here's the message I sent to the editors.

I would like to inquire as to who the anti-Mormon member of your editorial staff is. I have sensed an anti-Mormon bias in articles in the last few months about Romney and other issues, but nothing so blatant as the recent article about polygamy in the May 16 issue.
This article attributes to Joseph Smith instruction that a man must have at least three wives to enter heaven, and gives a date for the revelation. This date, much less this teaching, is not given by any reliable source, but is to be found in anti-Mormon literature. Polygamy was never a requirement in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--the three wives requirement is not to be found in any verified source. In short, the material used in the third paragraph was not drawn from reputable sources, and most likely was taken directly from anti-Mormon literature.
In addition to this rude display of journalistic irresponsibility, your editors have continued to ignore the AP Stylebook direction and the LDS Church's request that the term "Mormon" not be used to refer to any groups besides the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. From the Stylebook, "The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other Latter Day Saints churches that resulted from the split after [Joseph] Smith's death."
I recognize that it is the right of "The Week" and its editorial board to hold and express any opinion, however offensive, about Mormons and the LDS Church. Decency, however, would suggest that such editorial bias be saved for the editorial pieces and not the News section, where the readers of your magazine should be able to expect verified fact.

The purpose of physics research

noreply@blogger.com (Physics and Faith) — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 00:42:35 PDT

I had a conversation via email with a friend who was inquiring about my current research. I thought I'd post it here (with a couple corrections), since people always ask me what the potential applications for the results of our experiment are.

AH:
wow, what is the experiment?

Me:
Some theorists have suggested that gravity will behave differently at distances less than about one-five-hundredth of an inch. We're trying to test that hypothesis by looking at the gravitational force from a dense 4" diameter metal disk on a small pendulum as we move the ~~pendulum~~ disk towards and away from the ~~disk~~ pendulum.

AH:
wow! what would be the benefits of knowing whether or not gravity does behave differently at that small of a distance?

Me:
The short answer, in terms of practical applications, is we don't know yet--we'll let the engineers figure that out.
The long answer is that it would validate or invalidate proposed hypotheses, giving us a better picture of how the world actually works. Gravity is much weaker than the other forces between particles (electromagnetics and the forces responsible for nucleus cohesion and decay), and no one knows quite why. Our experiment could validate one hypothesis as to why it is. In some sense it would be a cultural achievement. What practical benefit is there from Sir Edmund Hillary reaching the peak of Mt. Everest, or from someone discovering a new species of animal, etc.?
Typically, practical application of scientific discoveries doesn't come for some time. Take Einstein's theory of relativity, for example. It's regarded as one of the greatest scientific breakthroughs in history, but now, a century after it was developed, the only current practical application I can think of for it is correction to the clocks on GPS satellites. That's pretty helpful, since GPS systems wouldn't work without it, but it's not indicative of the importance of the theory. It has enabled physics to progress and opened the development of other tested theories that have further enlarged our understanding of the world.
(I hope this isn't coming across as a rant. I do get this question just about every time I tell someone about our research, and I'm slowly figuring out better ways to answer it. Thanks for the interest!)

I can't take credit for the "cultural achievement" bit--I think I heard that from someone who'd heard Wolfgang Ketterle answer a question about what the benefit is to creating a Bose-Einstein condensate.

WASHINGTON POST, ON FAITH - Michael Otterson: Polygamists Are Not Mormons

noreply@blogger.com (Physics and Faith) — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:51:55 PDT

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/michael_otterson/2008/04/polygamists_are_not_mormons.html
The Church's media relation director, Michael Otterson, has a blog on the the Washington Post's On Faith site. His post today reiterates the proper use of the term Mormon, and includes a link to a Reuters article and his own video statement. Backtracking to the Church's Newsroom site (http://newsroom.lds.org), you can find this video along with a video of President Hinckley, the president of the Church who passed away earlier this year, "speaking about the clear distinction between the Church and polygmagous sects."
On a related note, I've noticed that many journalists are referring to the polygamist groups as fundamentalist Mormons. Despite the F in FLDS standing for fundamentalist, these groups are not fundamentalist in the sense of following the fundamental tenets of Mormonism. Just because they've named themselves that doesn't mean that they are.

Proper use of the term "Mormon," take 2

noreply@blogger.com (Physics and Faith) — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:04:56 PDT

I haven't posted anything for a while mainly because there hasn't been much to post about. In the last few days, however, there have been events in Texas involving the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (commonly referred to as FLDS). I'm not going to go into explaining what this church is, as I'm not qualified to do so, but suffice it to say that it is not connected to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). A number of media sources have used the term "Mormon" to refer to the FLDS church, but this is incorrect, as I've explained previously. The Associated Press Stylebook explains, “The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other Latter Day Saints churches that resulted from the split after [Joseph] Smith’s death.”
I have covered this topic before, but it really irks me to see a picture of the Salt Lake Temple, a recognized symbol of our church, associated with an article about an unrelated group (such as here). Sure, this group may be a breakaway sect from the LDS Church, but calling them Mormon, especially in the headlines, gives people the impression that these events involve the LDS Church, which they don't.
In case any of this is unclear, let me reiterate. Any group that endorses polygamy is not connected to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as the LDS Church or Mormon church. The term "Mormon" should not be used to label these groups, both by request of the LDS Church and according to the Associated Press Stylebook, the standard for journalism language style and usage. Improper use of the label "Mormon" is misleading, irresponsible, and disrespectful to members of the LDS Church. If anyone has questions about the proper use of the term, feel free to post a comment with your question.

Offer to journalists

noreply@blogger.com (Physics and Faith) — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:07:32 PST

So I've done some complaining about a lack of fact and style-guide checking in news about the Church. One of my friends has the saying that you can complain as much as you want, as long as you have a solution. Here's my solution: I'm offering to fact-check articles about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for any journalist who happens across this offer (for free). Checking my visitor logs, I don't think I'm going to get swamped by requests anytime soon, but the offer stands.

Name of the Church, pt. 2

noreply@blogger.com (Physics and Faith) — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:09:12 PST

I already wrote a post about the real name of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but there's a couple other things I want to bring up. I failed to mention in my last post that the Church's style guide for journalists specifically requests that the Church not be called the "Mormon Church." It also asks that "LDS Church" and "Church of the Latter-day Saints" not be used. While I can understand use of "LDS Church," since the acronym is so prevalent, I'm been surprised in my recent news searches to see articles calling the Church the "Church of Latter-day Saints." Doing this presents it as the official name of the church, which it is not, and, by removing the name of the Savior, seems to reinforce the bias that we aren't Christians. I'd like to know why this happens--are the journalists just trying to save some space? I understand that mistakes happen, but with the Church being the fourth-largest denomination in the U.S., you'd think that writers and editors could put more effort into doing some background research and getting things right.

VENTURA COUNTY STAR - With a Mormon candidate on the ballot . . .

noreply@blogger.com (Physics and Faith) — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 18:16:29 PST

http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/jan/12/latter-day-politics/
This was a well-written article that I didn't find any factual errors in. Kudos to them.

Change in Book of Mormon wording

noreply@blogger.com (Physics and Faith) — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 09:49:24 PST

News media, including the Associated Press (article here) have picked up a story about the addition of the word "among" to the introduction of the Book of Mormon. Apparently, this has become an issue of interest for critics of the Church. From the AP article,

What's the big deal? Church defenders say there is nothing important in the change.

But skeptics view it differently. The issue is that church missionaries have long portrayed Book of Mormon stories as fact. To them, it looks like the new wording is a quiet concession that DNA research accurately contradicts the scriptural claim.

Anyone unfamiliar with the Book of Mormon might assume from reports of this change that the actual text of the Book of Mormon was changed. This is not the case. The introduction is not part of the original text as translated from the original records, but an editorial explanation of the origin of the sacred text, somewhat akin to the introduction in a King James translation of the Bible.
Now to address the actual issue of "the scriptural claim" that Israelites were the sole inhabitants of the Americas and thus the ancestors of the Native Americans. The Book of Mormon does not make this claim. The arrival of three separate groups in the Americas are recorded in the text, one of which was contemporary with the Tower of Babel. I could be wrong, but I don't believe that the text makes any claims that no other groups came.
While I'm somewhat on the topic, I should say something else. Attempting to disprove or prove the historical account of the Book of Mormon is not the appropriate way to come to a sure knowledge of its veracity. This knowledge can come only from God. The Book of Mormon prophet Moroni, in the last chapter of the Book of Mormon, explains,

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.
4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. (Moroni 10:3-5)

Pretty simple, huh? When you sincerely want to know the truth, pray and ask God whether the Book of Mormon is true, and you will receive an answer. If you want truth, go to the source of all truth. This is how I know that the Book of Mormon is true, that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true and living church.

Recognition of Wide-Spread Prejudice Against Mormons

noreply@blogger.com (Physics and Faith) — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 00:25:32 PST

I watched the Iowa caucus coverage on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer with my wife's family while we were visiting for the holidays. We were all pretty surprised by an answer by Stuart Rothenberg, one of the commentators, to a question about the effect of Romney being a Mormon. Here's part of the transcript (link, emph. added):

MARGARET WARNER: But back in the early fall, also, everyone was talking about the Mormon factor, that the evangelical Christians didn't entirely trust Romney, being a Mormon. Do you think that was a factor?

STUART ROTHENBERG: Oh, I think it was a huge factor. And it's not so much that they didn't trust him. They were uncomfortable with elevating a Mormon to the presidency and giving that legitimacy.

But I think that was a huge factor, Margaret. There were whole chunks of conservatives who couldn't buy into Romney, and were uncomfortable with Giuliani and McCain, and when Thompson ran it didn't look like very much, and so Huckabee became the default candidate. There was a vacancy there, and he just moved into it.

It just blew us away that someone would be so straight-forward in recognizing the anti-Mormon bias that exists in this country. I did a search for "Stuart Rothenberg Mormon" and turned up a recent article he wrote that explains his ideas as to why evangelicals are so anti-Mormon (link). My summarization of his thesis is that evangelicals are afraid of legitimizing our faith because they don't see it just as a faith but as an organization with the purpose of "wooing evangelicals or potential adherents away from Christianity."

Video Challenges Public Misperceptions, Explains Myths vs. Reality

noreply@blogger.com (Physics and Faith) — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:40:10 PST

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has publicly released a video that addresses a number of issues relevant to the Church's treatment in the media. From the news release: "A 10-minute video originally produced for the large number of journalists visiting Salt Lake City for the 2002 Winter Olympics has been updated and posted on Newsroom today to help counter persistent myths about the Church."

Here's the video (link).

DESERET MORNING NEWS - Mormon Media Monitor: Time to grade LDS coverage

noreply@blogger.com (Physics and Faith) — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:32:00 PST

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695240109,00.html

A journalist and professor grades recent media coverage of the LDS Church in this article.

Explanation of the real name of the "Mormon" church

noreply@blogger.com (Physics and Faith) — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 01:12:29 PDT

Most people have heard of Mormons, but I'm guessing only a minority knows that the real name of our church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The name "Mormon" comes from one of our books of scripture, the Book of Mormon, and was originally used by others to refer to members of our church in a derogatory sense. (It's kind of like how use of the word "yankee" to refer to Americans was originally meant to be an insult, but was embraced by the colonials.)
"Mormon," when used correctly, refers to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Associated Press stylebook says, “The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other Latter Day Saints churches that resulted from the split after [Joseph] Smith’s death.” So all the polygamous groups in the news, e.g. Warren Jeffs' group, should not be referred to as being a Mormon group. The article here describes this issue more fully.
I may also use the acronym LDS. This comes from "Latter-day Saint" and referring to our church as the LDS Church or faith is preferable to calling it the Mormon Church. All these different names can sometimes lead to some humorous confusion--one story is of someone reporting on disaster cleanup and saying that the most help came from volunteers from two groups, the LDS and the Mormons.

Irony

noreply@blogger.com (Physics and Faith) — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:30:49 PST

There are a few choice bits of irony that I thought I'd point out in all the guff Romney is getting for being Mormon.

Harry Reid, the current Senate Majority Leader and highest-ranking Democrat in the country, is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He's fourth in line for President if the President, V.P., and Speaker of the House were incapacitated. I didn't hear anyone question his faith when he was appointed.
Mike Leavitt, the current Secretary of Health and Human Services, is a member. Members of our church have also served as Secretary of Education, Secretary of the Interior, U.S. Treasurer, Secretary of Agriculture, and Solicitor General. Ezra Taft Benson, who served as Secretary of Agriculture, later became president of our church.
The Mormon Tabernacle Choir has sung for 10 U.S. Presidents. Ronald Reagan declared it "America's Choir" and George H.W. Bush called it a "national treasure." What other "cult" (as many evangelicals would label our church) has had its flagship choir perform at 5 presidential inaugurations and the funerals of 2 presidents?
Speaking of music, google "Mack Wilberg Baptist." Mack Wilberg is a composer and arranger who is currently an Associate Director of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. Doing this search turns up web pages for hundreds of Baptist congregations who are using his arrangements of hymns. So Baptists claim the Jesus we worship is not their Jesus, and that we aren't Christians, and yet they use music arranged by a Mormon in their worship services? Weird.

Well-known LDS scientists

noreply@blogger.com (Physics and Faith) — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 13:00:44 PDT

Since this blog is titled "Physics and Faith" I decided I should get some science related content up. Here are a few well-known scientists who were/are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Henry Eyring - recipient of the National Medal of Science for developing the Absolute Rate Theory of chemical reactions, served as president of the American Chemical Society and the Association for the Advancement of Science
Harvey Fletcher - provided key assistance to Millikan in developing his famous oil-drop experiment, was the "father of stereophonic sound," and served as a president of the American Physical Society
Philo T. Farnsworth - invented the television
Tracy Hall - a member of the first group to create synthetic diamond

THE WEEK - Romney: Does it matter that he’s Mormon?

noreply@blogger.com (Physics and Faith) — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 00:28:54 PST

http://www.theweekdaily.com/news_opinion/controversies/29883/romney_does_it_matter_that_hes_mormon.html
(subscription required)

My response:

"Even today, the church hierarchy says that it is “prophetic and inspired, and that its rulings take precedence over any human law.”" This is not the case. The 12th Article of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Articles of Faith describe basic tenets of the church) states "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

THE WEEK - Mitt Romney: Addressing the question of faith

noreply@blogger.com (Physics and Faith) — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 00:31:02 PST

http://www.theweekdaily.com/news_opinion/talking_points/30912/mitt_romney_addressing_the_question_of_faith.html
(subscription required)

My response (I wrote this while writing my first post for the blog, so there's some overlap):

"[Romney] didn’t mention that Mormons think the Bible embraced by evangelicals is riddled with error, or that the Angel Moroni gave a new, improved rewrite of Scripture to Mormon founder Joseph Smith . . ."
Quite simply, Romney did not say these things because Mormons do not believe them. Mormons believe the Bible to be the word of God, and church members in the U.S. use the King James version, the same version used by millions of other Americans. The further scripture given to Joseph Smith does not replace the teachings of the Bible, but is used alongside it. It appears that this statement comes from the editors of the THE WEEK and not from the article by Mr. Wolfe, as suggested by this article. Mr. Wolfe's article is much more balanced.
Quoting Christopher Hitchens in the last two articles about Romney clearly shows an anti-Mormon bias on the part of the editors of THE WEEK. Shame on you for supporting such sensationalist journalism. Such practices would not be tolerated by the media or the public if certain other groups were the subject, but for some reason off-handed Mormon bashing is still acceptable.