String Theory

from JoeUser Forums

Hope the title didn't get anyone excited, this is not an in depth article trying to explain string theory so if that is what you were hoping for, move along.  Instead, this blog is more of simply my general reaction to this theory.

I was watching a Nova piece about string theory and found it very interesting.  I have to give scientists credit for putting so much effort into something that really can't be tested.  All the while I couldn't help thinking, no matter how far scientists get, i.e. elementary particles, whatever is the basis of everything, you will always end up at a point where something came from nothing.  That is the point I struggle with and I am sure I am far from alone.

Whenever I hear people say "My scientific mind won't allow me to believe in God" I cringe.  Even if you have the most scientific mind in existence, you have to admit that at some point something came from nothing and there is simply no explaination.  You either have faith in an unexplainable higher power or you don't.  You either accept that there are things that just can't be proven or you don't.

I am always excited to see how far science will get us but all the while feeling that we can only get so far with our human abilities.

5,631 views 25 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
know what? You're not alone with this feeling. I deal with the sciences and I've relied on its logic for most of the issues I faced ,but then comes this blank wall. The nearest description of the feeling I have is best expressed from a quote from an Asian political figure I admired (the late Benigno Aquino) who upon being interviewed on televison said, "If God did not exist, I would have to invent Him."
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
String theory is interesting. I read once that a good comparison of size is of a string in an atom is like comparing an oak tree to the known universe. Wow...
Groupy 2 - Organize multiple applications into grouped tabs on your Windows desktop
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
I find string theory fascinating too.  It is fun to think about but there is no way to test it.  I find that a bit frustrating.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
No way to test it?

Not quite true. No way to directly measure strings due to uncertainty principle and the fact that string lengths are of thje order of the planck lenfth. There are plenty of predictions that the theory can make which can be tested though. The most obvious one is the super symmetry, stating that strings which carry force have corresponding particles which carry matter. Find those particles and it helps prove string theory. The problem is that current particles accelerators are not powerful enough to find such particles. The next generation of partical accelerators (currently under construction) will be though, so string theory should be tested with 5 years. There are of course many string theories so much more experimentaion may be required before any are proven to be correct.

Paul
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree with you Jilluser. When you get right down to it, no scientific principle has ever been established without people of science believing in it long before they could prove it. Heavier than air flight (for example) was debated for centuries, many considering it folly to even pursue since it was obviously impossible. Yet those in science who dared to dream (IMHO, the true scientists) knew that someday it would not only be possible, but so commonplace it would one day be used as an example of the shortsightedness of scientists of the past.

Scientific method is a series of tests which work with that which we have learned to quantify. For too many, if we can't quantify it, it doesn't exist, yet if no one believed in it, we would never test anyting enough to quantify it.

As far as your thoughts that we will always run into the problem of something from nothing, think of this. If you were sitting on the nucleus of an atom, and looked through a microscope, what would we see? Then, whatever answer you come up with from there (say Strings), sit on that string and look through the microscope again.....

I'm not here to try to tell you what we'd see, but I bet you would see something.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Whether it is of science or of spirit, it is not seeing that leads to knowing, it is the idea that when you look, there will be something there to see.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

The problem is that current particles accelerators are not powerful enough to find such particles.
That was what I was referring too.  You can go ahead and predict that we will have the technology in say 5yrs but that really doesn't change anything for now as far as proof goes. 


If you were sitting on the nucleus of an atom, and looked through a microscope, what would we see? Then, whatever answer you come up with from there (say Strings), sit on that string and look through the microscope again.....
Of course.  If you are mathmatically minded at all you know that if you keep moving toward a point by moving half the distance per move, you will never get there.  Infinity is a difficult concept to wrap one's brain around.  I believe there are an infinite amount of "things" to see through science but science will never get us to the point where it all began.

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
I really liked this article, Jill. I don't have a lot more to say than just "I really liked it" and I think I need to learn more about this theory. Thanks.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Even if you have the most scientific mind in existence, you have to admit that at some point something came from nothing and there is simply no explaination


I like this thread. Scientists claim that energy cannot disappear or be newly created. It can only change form. All energy must therefore have existed forever in some form or other. I don’t believe there was ever a time when there was literally nothing at all.

You either have faith in an unexplainable higher power or you don't


That’s so true. It’s all a question of faith. We can either believe that everything is an accident and there is no purpose to anything; or we can believe that the cosmos and our existence has deeper meaning and transcendent purpose. In principle, science is unable to answer the larger questions: “Why is there something rather than nothing at all?”; “Is there any purpose to life?”; and, “Does our subjective self-awareness continue to experience life after death?”

Science merely describes the cosmos we live in, and cannot explain why it exists in the first place, or what transcends ‘the Infinite’. I personally adhere to Sir William Blagg’s statement: “Religion and science are opposed . . . but only in the same sense as that in which my thumb and forefinger are opposed - and between the two, one can grasp everything."

String theory predicts the existence of different dimensions and different realms beyond our own. Who is to say there is not a Heavenly dimension?
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

I think I need to learn more about this theory
It really is fascinating stuff.


“Religion and science are opposed . . . but only in the same sense as that in which my thumb and forefinger are opposed - and between the two, one can grasp everything."
I love that quote!  Thanks for the great comment.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
no scientific principle has ever been established without people of science believing in it long before they could prove it


I'm afraid that as a scientist I must strongly disagree with this. I understand what you are saying but this only really applies to evolving scientific work and not to science in general. So many scientific discoveries were just that, discoveries. Surprises that occurred during experiments or when data was analysed. The proof therefore came before the actual theory was worked out or understood. Many scientist work in trying to explain and understand scientific effects. A good example is gravity. Proof is there long before scientist truely understand it. Hence all the work on string theory to unify gravity with other proven forces.

Paul.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
am always excited to see how far science will get us but all the while feeling that we can only get so far with our human abilities.
Very fairly put.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Science discovery can concievably be accidental but not without examination.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Brummy: Convincing. Please check out my blog.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=58967


Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=58967


Well said, Jill.

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Brummy: Convincing. Please check out my blog.
http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=58967


Hi Steven, it’s Brummy. Long time no speak!

I read your link, and think it’s excellent. Very well written, intelligent and open minded.

I don’t think that God is a purely intellectual concept. From my own experience, faith in God is more a matter of the heart, as well as the head, (rather than exclusively one or the other). Belief in God is more about spiritual awareness and intuition, which naturally advances over time as we gain wisdom and knowledge. I believe that we will all experience God sooner or later, even if it takes many lifetimes. God is inescapable at the time of our death, but regarding our lives on earth, I believe that it’s a matter of time and growth for humanity, as well as for each of us as individuals.

To interpret our religious tales through a scientific lens, as many of our fundamentalists insist upon doing, is to miss the deeper truths they convey, often expressed in poetic imagery or simple metaphors. I’m sure our religious mythologies are mankind’s attempts to understand cosmic occurrences of which the human soul is deeply aware, but of which the mind can barely conceive.

Take the story of Adam and Eve. Christians could take a leaf out of the Qur’an by considering the notion that Adam and Eve were created at the outset in Paradise-Heaven (Surah 2.35-38). When Adam and Eve chose to eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they were driven out of Paradise to do exactly that. (This would explain why an all-loving God would allow us to live in a shit-hold like earth, albeit for a while. Trials and tribulations succeed in building spiritual muscle and promoting soul-substance - especially when everything has a happy and secure ending.)

Theologian Denis Edwards says "God's omnipotence can be understood as God's capacity to enter into love with all its costs. Divine omnipotence is really the divine capacity for love beyond all human comprehension.”)

Science and religion don’t have to conflict. I think it’s all a question of interpretation.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm afraid that as a scientist I must strongly disagree with this. I understand what you are saying but this only really applies to evolving scientific work and not to science in general. So many scientific discoveries were just that, discoveries. Surprises that occurred during experiments or when data was analysed. The proof therefore came before the actual theory was worked out or understood. Many scientist work in trying to explain and understand scientific effects. A good example is gravity. Proof is there long before scientist truely understand it. Hence all the work on string theory to unify gravity with other proven forces.


Actually Paul, I think we both said basically the same thing. Only you said it better.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
I had no idea what this article was about until I read through the comments. The first thing that came to mind when I read string theory was that thing about holding your wedding ring above your pregnant belly and whichever way it swings on the string/strand of hair is if it's a boy or girl.

What's string theory?
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you are mathmatically minded at all you know that if you keep moving toward a point by moving half the distance per move, you will never get there.


Yes you will. If each move takes the same amount of time, then you would need to take an infinite number of moves. However, if you keep up a constant speed, you'll get there real quickly.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes you will. If each move takes the same amount of time, then you would need to take an infinite number of moves. However, if you keep up a constant speed, you'll get there real quickly.


Sure, you will get to other end.... after infinite time have passed. It's same for numbers. Start with number 100. Divide it by 2. Repeat it N times. You can't divide it down to zero. You will get smaller and smaller number but NEVER zero.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
You will get smaller and smaller number but NEVER zero.
This Zeno theory presupposes infinity within a finite visible space; actually it is only valid for the infinitesimal subatomic realm.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
To interpret our religious tales through a scientific lens, as many of our fundamentalists insist upon doing, is to miss the deeper truths they convey, often expressed in poetic imagery or simple metaphors. I’m sure our religious mythologies are mankind’s attempts to understand cosmic occurrences of which the human soul is deeply aware, but of which the mind can barely conceive.
Great statement; in the end, we are essentially aesthetic, not scientific. Thanks for reading my "strings."
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sure, you will get to other end.... after infinite time have passed. It's same for numbers. Start with number 100. Divide it by 2. Repeat it N times. You can't divide it down to zero. You will get smaller and smaller number but NEVER zero.


Sure, you may never get there, but close enough is good enough. I mean, if you're heading down to the pub for a middy, you don't need to end up in the closest spot to the bar. Someone else can buy your drink.

Chances are some scientist will figure out that it doesn't really matter how far away you are, there's always some way of putting the lead weight on the scales of life.

But then again most science (including most of the comments above) goes straight over my head, so it just goes to show what I know.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
What's string theory?


String theory is basically an attempt by scientists to bring together the behaviour of the known forces and interactions in the Universe. So for example, we have an equation (from newton) which describes the force due to gravity. We have another equation that describes the force two electrons exert on each other. These are completely difference equations though and have no relation to each other. String theory attempts to have a single unified theory that can be used to explain either force and accurately calculate it. It also attempts to explain fundamental issues such as 'what is mass' and 'what is energy'.

Paul.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
you may never get there,


People are thinking on the wrong scale here. If you keep halfing your distance to a target you will actually eventually reach it due to the uncertainty principle. A point will eventually be reached where the uncertainty in your position is greater than the remaining distance to the target. This very principle for example is used in quantum tunneling (a concept very important in computer chip design).

Paul.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
String theory ... attempts to explain fundamental issues such as 'what is mass' and 'what is energy'.


I don't think string theory can actually explain anything at all, regarding ultimate issues of existence - even if the theory is proved (hypothetically speaking). It can only describe the makeup and behaviour of the cosmos. This goes for any of science's endeavours.

If you keep halfing your distance to a target you will actually eventually reach it due to the uncertainty principle


I think a better way to understand the point that was made earlier (which was about infinity), is to consider travelling an infinite distance. You will never reach your destination, because you'll always have at least another mile to travel, so to speak. (What's more, the territory will always be new, which refutes the principle of walking along a circle, or in a closed sphere).