Did Henry Eyring Speak Sense or Nonsense With This Claim?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Philo Sofee
_Emeritus
Posts: 6660
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:04 am

Did Henry Eyring Speak Sense or Nonsense With This Claim?

Post by _Philo Sofee »

In the Book Science and Your Faith in God, Bookcraft, 1958 Henry Eyring, one of the cream of the crop LDS scientists said -
"The atomic bomb dramatically emphasized a fact discovered earlier in relativity theory and in laboratory experiments. This fact is that matter can disappear only to reappear again as energy. This liberalization in our conceptions regarding matter gives added significance to the doctrine that the spirit is composed of a refined kind of matter." (p. 16)

What strikes me is this appears to be saying that energy is considered a "refined matter" and therefore is "spirit." Am I misunderstanding Eyring here? How can such a gifted scientists think this? I am missing something, and curious if anyone of you can point me to what I am misunderstanding here. Thanks.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
_Dr Exiled
_Emeritus
Posts: 3616
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 3:48 am

Re: Did Henry Eyring Speak Sense or Nonsense With This Claim

Post by _Dr Exiled »

I followed him until he started talking about the spirit nonsense ....
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen 
_Philo Sofee
_Emeritus
Posts: 6660
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:04 am

Re: Did Henry Eyring Speak Sense or Nonsense With This Claim

Post by _Philo Sofee »

Exiled wrote:I followed him until he started talking about the spirit nonsense ....

Me too. At one time I advocated this but have since read much more science than when I made that Backyard Professor You Tube video with this subject. We have taken matter all the way down according to current science, and ALL the refined matter has nothing to do with anything except, well, matter. Whatever spirit actually is, even if refined matter, doesn't appear to me to help out Joseph Smith's doctrine. But I could be missing something. There is no finer matter to find in other words, we have done that. Joseph Smith's doctrine just seems to be swimming in the deep end to me at this point. It appears to be just more theological woo (as Mak would say)
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Did Henry Eyring Speak Sense or Nonsense With This Claim

Post by _Chap »

Philo Sofee wrote:In the Book Science and Your Faith in God, Bookcraft, 1958 Henry Eyring, one of the cream of the crop LDS scientists said -
"The atomic bomb dramatically emphasized a fact discovered earlier in relativity theory and in laboratory experiments. This fact is that matter can disappear only to reappear again as energy. This liberalization in our conceptions regarding matter gives added significance to the doctrine that the spirit is composed of a refined kind of
matter." (p. 16)


What strikes me is this appears to be saying that energy is considered a "refined matter" and therefore is "spirit." Am I misunderstanding Eyring here? How can such a gifted scientists think this? I am missing something, and curious if anyone of you can point me to what I am misunderstanding here. Thanks.


Yup. It's simple nonsense.

And in any case this is a common misinterpretation of the implications of relativity theory. The familiar e = m*c^2 equation is not just about what happens when some matter disappears entirely, as, for instance, if a particle meets its anti-particle and mutual annihilation occurs.

It is about what happens to the mass of ANY isolated system if energy leaves the boundaries of that system. That is why it is often better to introduce it as an equation about changes in energy and mass, thus:

Δe = Δm*c^2 (Where the greek letter Δ 'delta' indicates 'a change in')

This applies in, for instance, the case where we have a substance which oxidises (burns) in a sealed container, thus producing a quantity of heat energy, Δe, which eventually leaves the system by conduction to its surroundings. The mass of the system will then decrease by an amount Δm, given by the above equation. Yet no matter has disappeared. All that has happened is that some of the particles (in this case electrons) in the sealed container have moved to a lower energy state as a result of the chemical changes that have occurred.

Since c = 3*10^8 m/s, c^2 is huge. Thus, for the energy Δe produced in normal chemical changes such as the one described here, Δm is so small as to be almost undetectable. So we usually forget about it, although it is there all the same.


Take away point: Since energy can be produced without the annihilation of matter, Eyring is talking nonsense.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_DrW
_Emeritus
Posts: 7222
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:57 am

Re: Did Henry Eyring Speak Sense or Nonsense With This Claim

Post by _DrW »

Chap wrote:Take away point: Since energy can be produced without the annihilation of matter, Eyring is talking nonsense.

Well Chap, you showed that relativity [ e = m*c^2 ] didn't turn out so well for the GA apologists. But that was 1958 (~60 years ago). Time for some updated apologia. One wonders how long it will be before one of the younger GAs reads about quantum field theory and claims that there exists a spirit quantum field.

Silly, I know, but it makes about as much sense as Eyring did. Seeing a good scientist like Eyring compromise his integrity, not to mentions his credibility, with these kinds of statements is just sad, (or in Republican Utah - SAD).

(Come to think about it, the chances of a GA reading anything about QFT are probably low, to say the least.)
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."

DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
Post Reply