Getting Scientific

Here's my Science and Society (Sci10) Assignment

It is obvious that further advances in fundamental physics and cosmology are required before it will be possible to know the ultimate fate of the universe with any level of certainty. However, several theories have been proposed to at least explain, according to evidences in the universe’s present condition, the possible ways of how the universe, with everything that physically exists, would “end.”

Not this Big Bang.

(1)In my opinion, the scientific theory that best explains the ultimate fate of the universe is the “Big Freeze” or “Heat Death” theory. According to this understanding, the universe’s continued expansion would basically result to a state that is too cold (absolute zero temperature) to sustain life and even motion. It could occur under a flat or hyperbolic universe, because such geometries are a necessary condition for a universe that, as suggested by this theory, expands forever. In its concept of Heat Death, this theory entails that over a hundred trillion years, the universe goes to a state of maximum entropy, a degree of disorder, in which there are no energy gradients needed to sustain information processing, of which life is the most fascinating form. This approach is applicable to all spatial models, but presupposes that the universe reach an eventual temperature minimum.

Essentially, the reason why I, and a majority of the scientific community, accept this model is because it is supported by the evidence of an increasing rate of expansion in regions farthest from us. Also, the large amount of dark energy in the universe, which has been suggested by scientific findings, corresponds well to this theory’s idea of a universe that expands forever. In fact, even without dark energy, an open, negatively curved universe would continue expanding forever, with gravity barely slowing the rate of expansion. With dark energy thrown into the equation, the expansion not only persists but accelerates, and just how things develop depends on the properties of the dark energy itself, which remain a mystery to the scientific world. In contrast to other theories like the “Big Crunch” or the “Big Rip,” which both operate on a closed and sphere-like universe, the Big Freeze offers a more long, slow, and gradual decline of the universe. Although the events that come after this event, such as the formation of antimatter and its eventual collapse, this theory is the most feasible, considering the evidence the present has to offer.

(2)In effect, this theory argues that all matter, including our galaxy, our solar system, and naturally, our planet Earth, would slowly evaporate away as a weak form of energy. According to research, the Milky Way and the Andromeda Galaxy may collide with one another and merge into one large galaxy. Over time, the orbits of planets, including our own, will decay due to gravitational radiation, or will be expelled from their local systems by gravitational disturbances caused by encounters with other stellar remnants. After all nucleons (neutrons and protons) decay, the universe would be left with only black holes, ever more widely dispersed as the universe continues to expand. Of course, as already suggested, these black holes would leak away, as Stephen Hawking points out, until an unfathomable number of years. Following this, the universe will exist just as empty space and weak radiation at a temperature infinitesimally above absolute zero, as presented by the Big Freeze. Experts say that at the end of the universe, time itself will lose all meaning and basically result to futility for there will be no events of any kind, and subsequently no frame of reference to determine the passage of time or space.

(3) In the present context, an average human being may tend to ask, so what? These theories are, even if supported by some evidence, are still quite speculative, especially on the things that would happen after their respective catastrophic events. Even if they were true, these theories have no direct effects on humanity, especially in this time and age. However, if one considers these as representations of how science and technology has developed over the course of history and how the field of cosmology has revolutionized modern thinking, these theories about the ultimate fate of the universe could be very beneficial to mankind.

Still, these theories cover a bigger scope which, I believe, would come after the extinction of life, in the distant future. Therefore, we must focus on a crucial problem which has a direct impact on mankind. What will be the ultimate fate of life on earth? To answer this question, I believe that we should look at the different existential risks that have the potential to abolish, or radically restrict, human civilization and could, in due course, cause life extinction. These potential risks could be classified as natural or ‘man-made.’ The natural dangers involve volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, meteor impacts, and other cosmic threats while man-made (those aggravated by man’s actions) include global warming, nuclear wars, global pandemics, and chemical experimentations.

I would like to focus on the latter for I think that these man-made risks are something that today’s science and technology could address. With this put under consideration, this generation must look into and focus on the possibility of man destroying man. These problems include nuclear warfare and chemical experimentations which pose a great threat to the prosperity and the existence of the whole human race. While global warming is also a great threat, I think prioritizing the risks of nuclear wars would make the whole global warming case easier to solve. The logic behind this is quite simple, how can we save the planet if we can’t even care for and make peace with one another?

This brings me to the current issues we have today that may very well be the seeds to a wide-encompassing problem to the world. One is the growing tension between the United States, along with its ally Israel, and Iran. The U.S. basically sees Iran as a threat because of the Middle Eastern country’s nuclear enrichment plan–a project that Iran has repeatedly stated to be of peaceful purposes. Another is the CERN Large Hadron Collider which basically smash together opposing beams of either protons or lead nuclei with very high kinetic energy. This program has the potential to create low velocity micro black holes that could grow in mass or release dangerous radiation leading to doomsday scenarios, such as the engulfment of the Earth.

"Those paranoid Americans. Let's build a nuclear plant to annoy them."

How then can science and technology, as a field of study, intervene with the aforementioned issues? The answer to this question is simple: it shouldn’t. Once scientific exploration delves into the realm of events that could lead to harmful effects to the existence of life on earth, then it ceases to become an exciting field of knowledge and instead, becomes a dangerous one. Yes, scientific and technological advancements are very important in the lives of human beings. However, if these advancements go beyond the transcendental things that make us ‘humans,’ then science would ultimately defeat its purpose. If the world won’t realize this predicament, the end of the world may be sooner than expected.

My God My God

Here is my first assignment for my Theology class. Reread it today and felt like posting it, so stop asking stupid questions.

I used to believe in a personal God. But over the years and after reading some articles regarding the existence of an omnipotent being, I have been more convinced that God is more of an idea rather than a person of great power. I am aware of the fact that there are things that even scientific knowledge cannot explain or give greater detail about, but to accept that a theistic God is responsible for the existence of all things, to me, is somewhat obsolete and lethargic.

Ironically, I was a very faithful person when I was young. More than a decade ago, I used to devotedly attend Sunday Mass with my grandparents, who were very active in participating in religious activities. My parents were always busy at that time so I basically grew up with my lolo and lola. My grandparents were nice company, but they always reminded me to always pray to God. They were very strict about following God’s commandments and glorifying Him in all aspects of life. Probably because I was too young and naïve back then, I never questioned the existence of God, and I allowed every idea about him to come to me smoothly. My understanding of God during that time, caused by my belief that my grandparents knew best, was that he was a mystical being who controls everything in the universe and we, as humans created by him, should obey his orders and devote our lives to him.

But since then, I had doubts regarding who or what God truly is. Just to set things straight, I believe in the existence of God. However, I reject the notion that God is a person of great power. I firmly believe, at present, that God is a mystery which the human mind can never fathom. To me, God is beyond good and evil, beyond reason, and beyond personality. Personally, This view gives me the vigor and enthusiasm to search for the true meaning of life and God.

Having read some works in college tackling some issues about the existence of God, I accept that there is, indeed, a God, for again, there are things that even science cannot fully explain. To recognize that there are limits to what the human mind can know seems to complement and indicate the existence of a complex, inscrutable, and unconquerable idea–God. This conviction roots in my belief that one cannot trust the human mind too much, for human thought processes and perspectives are subjective and very difficult to identify. Thus, human knowledge is fixed; humans decide what is right or wrong, what is pleasant or unpleasant, what is real or imaginary. Personally, I think that this scheme of things justify the existence of God.

But God’s existence as a Father, as a Supreme Creator, and as an omnipotent being, as far as the prior claims are concerned, is, to me, a case of submitting and settling to a concept of an ultimate being for the sake of having something graspable within the confines of human knowledge. This father-like figure of a God, in my point of view, is only necessary for reverential purposes and should be treated as a symbolic approach to God’s existence. I have observed that all the time, people worship and pray to a Holy Father, to a ‘Him’ instead of an ‘it.’ I understand this nonetheless, for it is hard to worship something you do not know anyway. But aside from that function, I find no other significant reason to believe in a theistic God.

With my idea of God being a complex ideal brings about instability in our relationship. Currently, I am in a phase in my life where I question the purpose of prayer, which I have been told before to be a way of communicating to God. Since I believe in an impersonal God, I think that communication with it would not be sensible. Also, I believe that praying is against the divine plan. The universe tends to unfold as it should, and praying seems to serve no function. But I’ve read some forums online about how it’s not a matter of what ought to happen, but an act of obedience to God. This argument, however, is against the basic principles of God as an idea, not a person.

That being said, I still feel that my view of God is still in the process of searching for a true and solid foundation. I don’t feel stable and contented at all in respect of how I make sense of God in particular and the universe in general. Now, I favor the impersonal God. But in 10 years, perhaps I would agree with the idea of a personal God again. All I know is my mental wheels are still spinning and I look forward to other conceptualizations regarding the existence of God.