The string theory

[Hrvoje]

I hope there are good cosmologists here who can enlighten me on the string theory and how it relates to the classical arguments for the existence of God - most of all the first cause argument which presupposes the finites of the universe - i. e. that the universe and time and so on began to exist in a certain point - the big bang.

I don’t know much about the string theory, so if there are good string theoretics here, please, enlighten me.

 

[jimmy85]

I hope there are good cosmologists here who can enlighten me on the string theory and how it relates to the classical arguments for the existence of God - most of all the first cause argument which presupposes the finites of the universe - i. e. that the universe and time and so on began to exist in a certain point - the big bang.

I don’t know much about the string theory, so if there are good string theoretics here, please, enlighten me.

I dont know much about it neither but perhaps this could help you to understand string theory better, try to watch the other parts of the videos as well:
youtube.com/watch?v=FWK_sAGXjuY

youtube.com/watch?v=7mfh-3XHrYU

I personately think that there is alot of expeculation about many ideas within string theory but yet we are lacking a lot of data.

 

[bogeydogg]

Well the biggest problem with String Theory is that it is basicly upnprovable. Since, according to Bill Bryson’s *, we have never seen an electron, much less a quark, or a neutrino, or a photon or a gravaton, or anyone of the 100 sub-atomic particles that are mathematically postulated to exist, it is really difficult to guess when or if we would ever prove ST since they have not been observed directly.

Let me insert here that the far outer planets as well as pluto’s moon were mathematically postulated before being definitively discovered so lack of imperical observation is not proof of non-existence.

The idea is that everyting… EVERYTHING is made up of tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny strings of energy which vibrate within 7,9,10 or 11 dimensions, which we cannot see because we are not small enough, and the way in which they vibrate determines what kind of sub-atomic particle they will compose. The atrraction of ST is that it irons out the apparent contradictions within Quantum Theory while at the same time still working for Einstein/Newtonian macro-atomic physics.

Is any of this real and what does have to do with God, not much. Except of course that if the contradictins of QT can be ironed out then causality comes right back into the forefront of explaining the universe and randomness (and along with it scientific atheism) goes right out the window.

BTW, a lot of QT physicists really dislike ST or at best will call it irrelavent.

 

[jimmy85]

Well the biggest problem with String Theory is that it is basicly upnprovable. Since, according to Bill Bryson’s *, we have never seen an electron, much less a quark, or a neutrino, or a photon or a gravaton, or anyone of the 100 sub-atomic particles that are mathematically postulated to exist, it is really difficult to guess when or if we would ever prove ST since they have not been observed directly.

Let me insert here that the far outer planets as well as pluto’s moon were mathematically postulated before being definitively discovered so lack of imperical observation is not proof of non-existence.

The idea is that everyting… EVERYTHING is made up of tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny strings of energy which vibrate within 7,9,10 or 11 dimensions, which we cannot see because we are not small enough, and the way in which they vibrate determines what kind of sub-atomic particle they will compose. The atrraction of ST is that it irons out the apparent contradictions within Quantum Theory while at the same time still working for Einstein/Newtonian macro-atomic physics.

Is any of this real and what does have to do with God, not much. Except of course that if the contradictins of QT can be ironed out then causality comes right back into the forefront of explaining the universe and randomness (and along with it scientific atheism) goes right out the window.

BTW, a lot of QT physicists really dislike ST or at best will call it irrelavent.

I have a question, Does string theory applies the uncertainty princple just like in quantum mechanics?
or Is string theory proposing a theory of everything with zero degree of uncertainty?

I ll appreciate your answer

 

[john_doran]

I have a question, Does string theory applies the uncertainty princple just like in quantum mechanics?
or Is string theory proposing a theory of everything with zero degree of uncertainty?

I ll appreciate your answer

string theory (or m-theory) is compatible with the uncertainty principle.

 

[bogeydogg]

In the sense of the uncertainty principle being understood to mean indeterminancy then yes as I understand it, and my understanding is that of the curious only, but it also seeks to explain the so-called random occurrences within QT. For example, the appearance of particles in the atom smasher which seem to pop into existence ex nihilo and just as suddenly wink out of existence to go seemingly nowhere, ST posits that these particles do not begin and cease to exist from the nothing but rather that they exist all of the time except only in dimensions which we normally cannot observe. In the same way, the famous Quantum Leap, in which an electron will jump from valence ‘x’ to appear in valence ‘y’ without any time lapse to allow for travel, it is here and then there with no time lapse, this is the Quantum Leap, again this all according to my understanding but I do think it is correct. ST would indicate, that since electron are made of extra-dimensional ‘strings’ of energy that these strings can easily pass through unobserved dimensions thereby making it appear that the electron has passed from x to y. I do realize that this would indicate that there are dimension to which time does not apply and I can’t hope to explain so please don’t ask me to try because it makes my head hurt to think this hard.

 

[JimG]

M-theory is interesting, but it has no particular connection to proving the existence of God.

Personally, I do not agree that a universe with a temporal beginning requires God but an temporally infinte universe doesn’t. Both require a creator, because both sorts of universes are contingent, not necessary, realities.

There are all sorts of infinities. The series of even integers: 2, 4, 6, 8, etc, is an infinite series. And it is exactly equal to the infinte series of all integers: 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. Because they can always be matched up one for one, with none left over.

Sorry, I didn’t mean to get into that…

 

[jimmy85]

In the sense of the uncertainty principle being understood to mean indeterminancy then yes as I understand it, and my understanding is that of the curious only, but it also seeks to explain the so-called random occurrences within QT. For example, the appearance of particles in the atom smasher which seem to pop into existence ex nihilo and just as suddenly wink out of existence to go seemingly nowhere, ST posits that these particles do not begin and cease to exist from the nothing but rather that they exist all of the time except only in dimensions which we normally cannot observe. In the same way, the famous Quantum Leap, in which an electron will jump from valence ‘x’ to appear in valence ‘y’ without any time lapse to allow for travel, it is here and then there with no time lapse, this is the Quantum Leap, again this all according to my understanding but I do think it is correct. ST would indicate, that since electron are made of extra-dimensional ‘strings’ of energy that these strings can easily pass through unobserved dimensions thereby making it appear that the electron has passed from x to y. I do realize that this would indicate that there are dimension to which time does not apply and I can’t hope to explain so please don’t ask me to try because it makes my head hurt to think this hard.

Yes amazing, string theory is beyond our understanding there could be 11 dimentions and a lot of pararel universes. the amazing thing about those pararel universes is that some universes could be similar to ours made up of matter, but another universes could be made up of completely different things… and they must have completely different fundametal forces… from the one we have, it is simply beyond our understaning for now.

 

[bogeydogg]

Yes amazing, string theory is beyond our understanding there could be 11 dimentions and a lot of pararel universes. the amazing thing about those pararel universes is that some universes could be similar to ours made up of matter, but another universes could be made up of completely different things… and they must have completely different fundametal forces… from the one we have, it is simply beyond our understaning for now.

Are you positing the mutli-verse?

 

[jimmy85]

Are you positing the mutli-verse?

what do you mean?

 

[bogeydogg]

what do you mean?

The idea that there are many many universes within a great Quantum vacuum into which, by indeterminate probability, universes pop into existence and that ours is one of many, many other universes within this great complex of universe within the even greater multiverse.

I think this is the strangest way to get rid of the cosmological problem and apparent fine tuning of the universe because, of course, following Hume’s regress, the mutliverse simply opens up the next question of, “OK, so where did the multiverse come from?” Not to mention the fact that it is radically unprovable and utterly unobservable which, btw, are two of the supposedly greatest problems w/ the existence of God repeatedly regurgitated by the atheist.

 

[jimmy85]

The idea that there are many many universes within a great Quantum vacuum into which, by indeterminate probability, universes pop into existence and that ours is one of many, many other universes within this great complex of universe within the even greater multiverse.

I think this is the strangest way to get rid of the cosmological problem and apparent fine tuning of the universe because, of course, following Hume’s regress, the mutliverse simply opens up the next question of, “OK, so where did the multiverse come from?” Not to mention the fact that it is radically unprovable and utterly unobservable which, btw, are two of the supposedly greatest problems w/ the existence of God repeatedly regurgitated by the atheist.

well string theorists are starting to use the concept of parelel universes becuase some string theorists are asuming that strings can act like membranes as well. I dunno how but this seems to ential paralel universes. althought it sounds pretty much as something theorical.

here is a documentary about it, try to downlaod the other parts as well:
youtube.com/watch?v=A_FGvfh8HoY

 

[JimG]

I don’t think that multiverse theory is a necessary part of string or M-theory. In some cases, it seems the multiverse hypothesis is used as a way to escape the ‘anthropic’ problem–i.e. that the basic constants of the universe we observe, seem to be fine tuned to support human life.

 

[Hrvoje]

I don’t think that multiverse theory is a necessary part of string or M-theory. In some cases, it seems the multiverse hypothesis is used as a way to escape the ‘anthropic’ problem–i.e. that the basic constants of the universe we observe, seem to be fine tuned to support human life.

My thoughts exactly.
Since, if our universe is the only universe, the chance of human life evolving by chance is… very close to impossible.
But given an infinite number of parallel universes in infinite time, it only seems very likely for human life to evolve by chance.

Parallel universes seem to pose a threat to the anthropic principle.

 

[Hrvoje]

M-theory is interesting, but it has no particular connection to proving the existence of God.

Personally, I do not agree that a universe with a temporal beginning requires God but an temporally infinte universe doesn’t. Both require a creator, because both sorts of universes are contingent, not necessary, realities.

There are all sorts of infinities. The series of even integers: 2, 4, 6, 8, etc, is an infinite series. And it is exactly equal to the infinte series of all integers: 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. Because they can always be matched up one for one, with none left over.

Sorry, I didn’t mean to get into that…

No, no, that’s great, we SHOULD get into that.

Ok…

Both universes, a temporally infinite one and a temporally finite one would require a creator because they are both contingent, is the argument, right?

But how could one state such a thing with certainty? One might argue, oh, that existence is simply a thing, like time, which has always been, warped around in some infinity or other.

I would not be surprised if the atheist would simply argue from the “well, it’s always been here” argument. Like the steady stream (pardon if my nomenclature is off) cosmologists, or some modification of such a theory, e.g. that the big bangs are simply reoccurring infinitely in an infinite time.

So, ideas?

 

[ThunderSandwich]

Brian Greene’s book The Elegant Universe is the canonical popular account of string theory.

As has already been pointed out, string theory is unproven. It does not, unfortunately, deny the uncertainty principle; thankfully for theism, however, the uncertainty principle is compatible with determinism. The supposed indeterminism is more a matter of the philosophical interpretation of quantum mechanics.

There are, I think, two areas of research that could potentially have a significant impact on Christianity and/or theism in general, and those are cosmology and the study of consciousness. However, both of those are so uncertain at present that no real conclusions can be drawn yet as far as I know.

I think the multiverse concept is actually useful in Christianity. Heaven (as in the third heaven) seems to have time, which implies physicality. However, multiverses are merely speculation at present, and at least one variety of multiverse (the “many worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics) is certainly incompatible with traditional theism. That interpretation should not be testable, though, even in principle.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I believe in the mutli-verse but I do not think that it is possible to have more than five dimensions. Within just five dimensions, there can exist an infinite amount of universes (the mutli-verse).

 

[jimmy85]

My thoughts exactly.
Since, if our universe is the only universe, the chance of human life evolving by chance is… very close to impossible.
But given an infinite number of parallel universes in infinite time, it only seems very likely for human life to evolve by chance.

Parallel universes seem to pose a threat to the anthropic principle.

I believe that there are not an infinite number of paralel universes. we only have 11 dimentions for now and I dont think pararel universes could be infinite, althought they could look infinite for our understanding just because we cant understand all this.
It is a fact that there was a big bang it dosent matter if there were many big bangs as well in many paralel universes. still there was a big bang and a creation in our universe.

 

[JimG]

No, no, that’s great, we SHOULD get into that.

Ok…

Both universes, a temporally infinite one and a temporally finite one would require a creator because they are both contingent, is the argument, right?

Yes. Neither the universe itself or anything in it constitutes within itself a sufficient explanation for its own existence.

But how could one state such a thing with certainty? One might argue, oh, that existence is simply a thing, like time, which has always been, warped around in some infinity or other.

Non-theists have pretty much abandoned traditional philosophy, so it’s likely they would assert that matter just is. It had no beginning and will have no end. To the theist question of ‘why should there be anything at all?’ their reply would be ‘why not?’

I think lately that it has only been the discovery that even the natural constants of the universe seem fine tuned for human life that have given non-theists pause. And that’s why the idea of multiverses was required–to preserve chance as an explanation for us.

 

[bogeydogg]

The multi-verse theory still falls into the regress it tries to do away with.

Time, as we know it, began with the Big Bang.

I have no problem with Big Bang Cosmology I think it is excellent evidence for the existence of God.

Atheist who use the anthropic principle to explain our existence chalk us up to being really lucky.