Physics and the Immortality of the Soul

[createdtoworship]

Not really. I'm not the one appealing to science that I don't understand - otherwise what was your point when you pointed out that the photon is massless? You brought it up...and then posted a Wikipedia page to educate people of whose knowledge or lack thereof physics you could not have known.
(the two word answer is special relativity, by the way)

No ridiculing intended, but when you rebutt someone by saying that cellphones "don't use photons" you're going to get some heat

Thats fine, but the point is that information is massless.

 

[mkatzwork]

Thats fine, but the point is that information is massless.

Special relativity says the photon is massless -at rest-, which it never is. It has energy, which is equivalent to mass. When a system absorbs a photon, its mass will increase according to e=mc2.

Can you think of a single example of information that exists independent of mass?

 

[Illuminaughty]

It may be possible that there is some sort of individual surivival after death that makes use of some mechanism we haven't been able track down with our current level of scientific advancement. It's also very possible that there isn't. It might not be too long before we can live indefinitely in the flesh though. We wouldn't have to question if such a survival existed or not because there would be incontrovertible evidence. It makes sense to work toward that in my opinion.

 

[createdtoworship]

Special relativity says the photon is massless -at rest-, which it never is. It has energy, which is equivalent to mass. When a system absorbs a photon, its mass will increase according to e=mc2.

Can you think of a single example of information that exists independent of mass?

actually I posted an article already that shows the proton is massless. Just because it acts like a wave and a particle does not PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that it has mass. Go ahead and prove it if you want. hopefully using phd equivelent with peer review and a phd in related field. Good luck.

 

[Illuminaughty]

Rupert Sheldrake is an interesting person. I've seen a few programs on the Science channel that looked into some of his theories. I've also read one of Goswamis book "The Holographic Universe". Very speculative stuff though. Not a theory that has the type of verification behind it that it makes it useful for forming any sort of conclusive statement on life after death in my opinion. We really don't know if it's true at this point.

 

[mkatzwork]

actually I posted an article already that shows the proton is massless. Just because it acts like a wave and a particle does not PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that it has mass. Go ahead and prove it if you want. hopefully using phd equivelent with peer review and a phd in related field. Good luck.

I'm confused. I think you mean photon. Are you asking me to prove that photons have mass? That'd be pretty much impossible, because that would refute special relativity, which is what showed it mathematically (not "that article")...

I think you may be misunderstanding mass-energy equivalence.

What is it exactly you are asking me to prove?

 

[mzungu]

actually I posted an article already that shows the proton is massless. Just because it acts like a wave and a particle does not PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that it has mass. Go ahead and prove it if you want. hopefully using phd equivelent with peer review and a phd in related field. Good luck.

Delving into the realms of science is to say the least not an easy task especially when one who does so dismisses the fundamental rules of how science works.

Science does not involve itself in the supernatural nor unfalsifiable. Science has strict rules and when you make claims you have better be able to support your claims. Science does not go around trying to disprove the existence of imaginary entities like fairies, polka dotted unicorns, gremlins etc.

You have failed to give any empirical evidence of a soul. Now unless you can provide such evidences then suffice it to say that what you call a soul is simply the result of electro chemical actions in the brain and nothing more.

I am not a physicist ( I am an industrial designer) and not a biologist; I do however know how science functions and when someone comes up with a non peer reviewed hypothesis based on the supernatural then sorry but I will relegate it to the realms of pink polka dotted unicorns and fairies!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

actually I posted an article already that shows the proton is massless.

Photons, not protons. Protons very much do have mass

 

[createdtoworship]

I'm confused. I think you mean photon. Are you asking me to prove that photons have mass? That'd be pretty much impossible, because that would refute special relativity, which is what showed it mathematically (not "that article")...

I think you may be misunderstanding mass-energy equivalence.

What is it exactly you are asking me to prove?

thats because photons are massless (not protons oops)

 

[createdtoworship]

Photons, not protons. Protons very much do have mass

photons are massless (not protons oops)

 

[mzungu]

photons are massless (not protons oops)

Photons carry energy. If you do not understand the following excerpt from Wiki then please ask one of our resident Physicists like Wiccan child to help explain it to you:

In physics, mass–energy equivalence is the concept that the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. In this concept, mass is a property of all energy, and energy is a property of all mass, and the two properties are connected by a constant. This means (for example) that the total internal energy E of a body at rest is equal to the product of its rest mass m and a suitable conversion factor to transform from units of mass to units of energy. Albert Einstein proposed mass–energy equivalence in 1905 in one of his Annus Mirabilis papers entitled "Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy-content?"[1] The equivalence is described by the famous equation:

 

[Michael]

I wonder how much of that teaching was around before Dante wrote his book.

Actually, if you study history, the pagan concept of hades had wormed it's way into "Christianity" pretty early in the process, early in the 2nd century AD. I think a lot of that change was related to the fact that Jerusalem and the "Jewish" side of Christianity was destroyed by Rome around 70AD. About the only sects left of early "Christians" were the ones Paul converted from what was then a "pagan" religion that INCLUDED a concept of eternal torment. I think it was simply a culturally driven "translation" problem created by taking fundamentally "Jewish" religion, and teaching it to a PAGAN culture, a culture with a set of preexisting beliefs about the afterlife.

Origen correctly explained the concept of a Jewish 'gehenna", but other church fathers seem to have already KLUDGED the concept of gehenna by the Early 2nd century as best as I can tell. I get the impression that once the apostles themselves died out, the dogma started to change. The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD was a significant turning point since that represented the destruction of what had been the "core" of the early 'Christian' church. The only 'churches' left after 70AD were churches setup OUTSIDE of the Jewish culture and OUTSIDE of any real understanding of Jewish afterlife concepts.

 

[Michael]

(from a post-Nicene manuscript fragment)

From Ignatius of Antioch (110AD)
Ignatius was a student of the Apostle John, and succeeded the Apostle Peter as the Bishop of Antioch. He wrote a number of important letters to believers in churches in the area:



From “The Martyrdom of Polycarp” (155AD)
This work was written by an Early Church Father (unknown author) and is dated very early in the history of Christianity. It describes the death of Polycarp, a disciple of the Apostle John, and also describes early teachings of the church:

The concept of unquenchable fires of gehenna in Judaism is also addressed in Origen's work. He uses that same term, but also describes how it results in Universal Salvation! The fire of gehenna is a CLEANSING fire, typically the GUILT that is associated with one actions on Earth. That fire is designed to CLEANSE the soul in Judaism, not TORMENT souls eternally.

You never did address my question about WHY Judaism has no concept of endless torment?

 

[createdtoworship]

The concept of unquenchable fires of gehenna in Judaism is also addressed in Origen's work. He uses that same term, but also describes how it results in Universal Salvation! The fire of gehenna is a CLEANSING fire, typically the GUILT that is associated with one actions on Earth. That fire is designed to CLEANSE the soul in Judaism, not TORMENT souls eternally.

You never did address my question about WHY Judaism has no concept of endless torment?

your version of Bible interpretation is traced back to the School of Alexandria, that tried to baby feed Christianity to the gentile greek by merging theology and culture (greek philosophy).

Origen was among those that led the school..

"Instead of emphasizing a grammatico-historical interpretation of the Bible, they developed an allegorical system of interpretation that has plagued Christianity since that time."

Earle E Cairns, Christianity Through The Centuries, Zondervan, 1996

So basically I don't follow anything origen says He was rejected sainthood because of His off sided beliefs.

 

[createdtoworship]

Photons carry energy. If you do not understand the following excerpt from Wiki then please ask one of our resident Physicists like Wiccan child to help explain it to you:

In physics, mass–energy equivalence is the concept that the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. In this concept, mass is a property of all energy, and energy is a property of all mass, and the two properties are connected by a constant. This means (for example) that the total internal energy E of a body at rest is equal to the product of its rest mass m and a suitable conversion factor to transform from units of mass to units of energy. Albert Einstein proposed mass–energy equivalence in 1905 in one of his Annus Mirabilis papers entitled "Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy-content?"[1] The equivalence is described by the famous equation:

you obviously don't understand that photons act in double, as a wave, and at times as a particle. But they are infact massless.

"The photon is currently understood to be strictly massless... If the photon is not a strictly massless particle, it would not move at the exact speed of light in vacuum, c. Its speed would be lower and depend on its frequency. Relativity would be unaffected by this; the so-called speed of light, c, would then not be the actual speed at which light moves, but a constant of nature which is the maximum speed that any object could theoretically attain in space-time.[21] Thus, it would still be the speed of space-time ripples (gravitational waves and gravitons), but it would not be the speed of photons."

from measly little wikipedia

"Why do photons produce pressure even though they are massless?
Because photons carry energy by virtue of their frequency""

from a stanford website
http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q2361.html

 

[Michael]

your version of Bible interpretation is traced back to the School of Alexandria, that tried to baby feed Christianity to the gentile greek by merging theology and culture (greek philosophy).

Well, it's precisely that "merging of theology" between pagan afterlife concepts of "hades" with standard Judaism that took place alright. You still didn't address my question about WHY the concept of eternal torment is absent (and has always been absent) from Judaism?

 

[createdtoworship]

Well, it's precisely that "merging of theology" between pagan afterlife concepts of "hades" with standard Judaism that took place alright. You still didn't address my question about WHY the concept of eternal torment is absent (and has always been absent) from Judaism?

why is it here:

And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.
Isaiah 66:24

 

[Michael]

why is it here:

And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.
Isaiah 66:24

That doesn't demonstrate WHY the concept of eternal torment is absent and has always been absent from Judaism. Anyone can cherry pick a line or two out of the Bible. Absent from your quote is anything related to them remaining exactly the same way forever and ever and ever.

How is eternal torment even compatible with "Loving your enemy"?

The fact of the matter is that the pagan concept from Roman/Greek religion (hades) was transplanted into 'Christianity' once Christianity became Romanized for public consumption.

Origen studied in Palestine and he was well respected in the early Church during his lifetime. His description of the PURPOSE of (gehenna/hell) is pretty much identical to what you find in Judaism today and during the life of Christ. That's not an accident.

Origen's description of the concept of an afterlife is the same concept that the Jews in Christ's audience understood when Christ used the term "gehenna". The fact that both terms gehenna (afterlife ideas) and sheol (simply the term from grave without any afterlife connotations) are translated to a single term is your first clue that there's a SERIOUS translation problem between the term the Jews in Christs audience associated with these terms and the concepts that some "Christians" associate with the term 'hell' today. They aren't even similar ideas. The concept of soul cleansing is related to the afterlife concept of Judaism, whereas the concept of eternal torment comes straight out of a pagan religion.

 

[createdtoworship]

The fact of the matter is that the pagan concept from Roman/Greek religion (hades) was transplanted into 'Christianity' once Christianity became Romanized for public consumption.

what date was that?

 

[mkatzwork]

He just pointed that out. Not quite sure you understand why they are understood to be massless, and what that really means? The kind of mass we're used to dealing with is essentially rest mass, although you're not even quite getting what "mass" is, because you're thinking in terms of what you see around you (which isn't an uncommon mistake, after all).

The picture isn't quite so simple though once you deal with photons and subatomic levels.

Imagine a box made of "perfect" mirrors on the interior, surfaces that reflect everything and absorb nothing. If you were able to trap some photons inside, they would add to the rest mass of that box. This is because of special relativity, that says E=mc2 - if you add to the E, you have to add to the M in proportion with the constant C squared. That's what it means.

Add to this the fact that a photon with energy of greater than just over 1 Mev can be converted to an electron-positron pair, each having a mass of just over 0.5ev in the right conditions.

Technically a photon is energy, it isn't a container for energy or really a thing with energy, it just ...is. Photons are never at rest (and never have rest mass, the mass with which we are acutely familiar) - but they have nonzero momentum.

Photons behave as if they have mass when they pass very very large objects - such as galaxies - because they follow the curvature of space-time taking the same path as if they had a tiny mass when they in fact do not. Energy is also capable of curving space-time (in fact, the curvature is really equal to the energy-momentum at that point, if I remember right), so photons do in fact have gravitational attraction.

And to complicate it even further, once you delve into quantum mechanics there are virtual photons which have a non-zero mass...and so on and so forth.

Basically...you're trying to borrow little bits of a very, very complicated concept, which is why you're going to run into problems.

you obviously don't understand that photons act in double, as a wave, and at times as a particle. But they are infact massless.

"The photon is currently understood to be strictly massless... If the photon is not a strictly massless particle, it would not move at the exact speed of light in vacuum, c. Its speed would be lower and depend on its frequency. Relativity would be unaffected by this; the so-called speed of light, c, would then not be the actual speed at which light moves, but a constant of nature which is the maximum speed that any object could theoretically attain in space-time.[21] Thus, it would still be the speed of space-time ripples (gravitational waves and gravitons), but it would not be the speed of photons."

from measly little wikipedia

"Why do photons produce pressure even though they are massless?
Because photons carry energy by virtue of their frequency""

from a stanford website
Gravity Probe B - Special & General Relativity Questions and Answers