Physics and Chai Tea

I was reading my own Facebook profile last night, and laughed when I saw my list of activities and interests.  Like this blog, it’s a bit eclectic.  I like etymology and prayer, baking and ecclesiology, physics and family. 

Just now, mixing myself a cup of Vanilla Chai, I was thinking of reviewing the drink.  (Because I know all my readers would try and like something just because I said it was good.)  Since a friend introduced me to chai, I have tried various mixes.  King Soopers brand was the best for a while, but only comes in very small containers.  Other brand powders tended to have a grainy taste or that bitter mixture settling to the bottom that wouldn’t dissolve.  I can brew and mix my own from a tea bag, and then add first honey and then milk (and sometimes vanilla or mint extracts).  That tends to taste bitter.  But I feel very cozy and British making hot tea.  Oregon Chai makes single-serving packets, which are convenient but expensive.  There is the concentrate, to which you add milk.  The concentrate must be refrigerated after opening.  It’s basically just a lot of work.  Costco sells a big can of chai mix, which doesn’t taste all that great.  (I suppose I should mention that I like my chai a little weak, and usually reduce the mix to water ratio.)  Most recently I found a 32 ounce can, produced by Caffe D’Amore, of Vanilla Chai.  It has no hydrogenated oils, though it is not all natural. 

I have purchased Chai lattes from several stores, including Starbucks, Caribou, some little tea shop in the Cherry Creek Shopping District, a shop run by Somalis near my work, and Panera.  Of those, I prefer the independent tea shop and Starbucks – though their prices are pretty outrageous! 

I like the strong, spicy flavor of a good Chai.  The cinnamon and cloves and ginger and other spices keep me warm hours after I have enjoyed the last sip.  With milk in it, a Chai latte makes a satisfying snack or morning kick.  It pairs well with cookies or sandwiches or a lot of fruits.  My favorite is the gentling silkiness of vanilla mixed in.  There are all kinds of Chai, including vanilla and mint and mango and chocolate.  The first two, and plain Chai, are my favorites.

When I put the mix in my mug today, I poured the hot water over it and watched before stirring.  The water took over the clumps of floating powder in a way that made it look like a volcano.  As the grains of mix soaked and dissolved, those from underneath floated up and then they got soaked, causing this rolling surfacing that was fascinating to watch. 

That’s physics.  Physics is way more than number-crunching or astronomical calculations.  You don’t have to study physics to appreciate it.  To me so much of my love of physics is awe at how things work.  That they work.  How beautiful they are while they’re working.  Look at clouds.  And ripples of water.  How trees bend in the wind.  The way powder dissolves into hot water.  Falling things.  Pushing things.  Flight.  Floating.  Sinking.  Magnets.  Aren’t they marvelous? 

To God be all glory. 

Energy equals Matter times the Speed of Light squared

I'm not a physicist. For years I've tried really hard to understand all this, but I admit I have found my mind going in circles (G.K. Chesterton says that is a sign of insanity). This is the problem when your IQ is only "gifted" and not "genious." My contribution to this subject, then, is only to stimulate thought.

You have very likely heard of Einstein's equation: E=m(c squared) Meaning that energy in the universe equals the product of matter and the speed of light times the speed of light. The speed of light is usually assumed to be constant.

There is some doubt as to whether c (the speed of light) has been the same throughout recorded history. What consequences does this have?

You have very likely heard of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that in a closed system, entropy increases: energy becomes less usable as it is used. A heat-containing system is winding down. This law was discovered by observing our little universe. Why then do some physicists insist that the universe, far from being a closed system, is infinite?

Compared to the geologic clock, the atomic clock is slowing down. (I think this has to do with the electromagnetic force that holds atoms together.) Everything on the atomic level is very small, so the difference is not very relevant presently. What does it mean, though, that an atomic clock is slowing? Then again, if Einstein's Theory of Relativity is true, then we can only ever say something is faster or slower compared to something else. Compared to a clock not changing at all, the geologic clock may be speeding up and the atomic clock the same, or faster but not as fast. Both may be slowing, only with the geologic clock slowing more rapidly (doesn't that sound paradoxical?). The only thing we can know for certain is that the two clocks don't match, and in what relation they are different.

What is the source of the energy (E in the famous equation?) What is the source of the matter (m in the equation)? Who created the light (velocity of light is c in the equation)? See Genesis 1:2 (esp. the Hebrew word for moved: rachaph), Genesis 1:1, and Genesis 1:3. How are these maintained? Colossians 1:16-17

In algebra, if there is an equals sign, and on one side of the equals sign something is happening, it must be happening to the other side. You can multiply both sides by three, or by one half - and the equation is still true. If an equation is a law, like E=mcc, and there is a change in the value one of the letters represents, it affects the other side of the equation. In this case, if c is slowing down, then at least one of the other terms is changing, and possibly both.

The First Law of Thermodynamics indicates that the sum of matter and energy in the universe is constant. Is that true? God is not creating more matter or energy (which are, if you consider the atomic level, very closely related), but is some of it decaying? If light is slowing down, then I propose there is less energy. This loss of energy is reflected in the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which turns out to simply be a symptom of a deeper principle.

What can be our conclusions? So much has been done with Einstein's equation, that I leave it to your imagination to consider the consequences on a theoretical application level. If you wish for a few of the applications in physics, I refer you to Barry Setterfield, a biblical physicist who has models of these things, and whose understanding of history and science will blow your socks off. Philosophically, however, a universe that is fundamentally winding down must also be two things, based on our observations: 1) It will have an end, and so had a beginning. 2) It is finite.

Obviously Christians knew from the Bible, and most would agree it is common sense, that the universe had a beginning. It was created by God. Revelation tells us how the universe will end, and how it will be replaced. I ask you: why would God create a world that had no limits? What was His purpose in creating the world? What are the implications of a limited world? How do naturalists deal with this concept?

My brothers and sisters tell me they get headaches when they think of a finite universe. If it has an edge, what is beyond the edge? We are so trapped in space. Eternity gets them likewise. If God is outside of time... usually they can't even figure out how to ask that question.

1 Corinthians 2:9, "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him."

To God be all glory.