Tuesday, April 29, 2008

The purpose of physics research

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.

Friday, April 11, 2008

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

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.

Monday, April 7, 2008

Proper use of the term "Mormon," take 2

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.