String Theory

Published on January 1, 2005 By JillUser In Pure Technology

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.

Comments (Page 1)

scatter629

on Jan 01, 2005

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."

Shovelheat

on Jan 01, 2005

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...

JillUser

on Jan 03, 2005

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.

Solitair

on Jan 07, 2005

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

ParaTed2k

on Jan 07, 2005

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.

JillUser

on Jan 07, 2005

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.

Shulamite

on Jan 08, 2005

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.

BrummyBoy

on Jan 08, 2005

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?

JillUser

on Jan 10, 2005

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.

Solitair

on Jan 12, 2005

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.

stevendedalus

on Jan 13, 2005

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.

stevendedalus

on Jan 13, 2005

Science discovery can concievably be accidental but not without examination.

stevendedalus

on Jan 13, 2005

Brummy: Convincing. Please check out my blog.

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

stevendedalus

on Jan 13, 2005

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

Well said, Jill.

AndyBaker

on Jan 13, 2005

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.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!