"M" Theory proof of God??

Brian2944

Active Member
Sep 5, 2005
130
24
Georgia
✟7,880.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I wanted to get some opinions on M-theory. As far as "theories of everything" goes it is new but actually it is 20-30 yrs old. Being a Christian I see something different into the theory. When cosmologist say that the 12th "string" could be the beginning of the universe and all gravity and energy radiate from that dimension, I think it could possibly be scientific proof of God. It goes far beyond what we experience and it seems like a source of everything in the universe.

On the other hand I believe heaven is a spiritual place and not a physical place, but could this be a "portal", if you will, that God uses to supply resources for the universe?

your thoughts?
 

Mongoose

So it goes.
Jan 17, 2004
1,914
31
38
Minnesota
✟17,244.00
Faith
Atheist
Hold on a second. Superstring Theory, therefore God? I suppose you can interpret it as you will in such a way that it leads to God, but I doubt it deductively "prove" his existence.

That debate aside, there's still a huge debate in the physics community about whether or not this theory is actually a waste of time. I'm not particularly fond of the theory myself for reasons other than how fascinating it is, but I'm not deep enough in my physics education yet to truly mathematically analyze it for myself. I do like to joke that superstring theory is nothing more than a recruitment device for physicists. (Why, we could use the numbers so bad, they're probably willing to do anything to get people into this field!)

In effect, though, Superstring Theory can't really be "proof" of anything, because we're so unsure if it's even a valid theory!
 
Upvote 0

one love

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2003
1,128
39
38
clear lake tx
Visit site
✟1,475.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Republican
Hold on now...

M-Theory, better known as String Theory is based on the belief that there lies somewhere in space, a fundamental particle, not a fundamental being which is omnicient. And besides, to say that there is a fundamental particle is ridiculous.

In String Theory, the myriad of particle types is replaced by a single fundamental building block, a `string'.
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_ss.html

All one needs to do is cut the distance in any fraction at a constant rate, once focus through some sort of highresolution electron microscope has been achieved. This means that you may be able to measure from point A to point B, but you will always be able to measure infinitely smaller. The universe therefore is infinite and therefore has no fundamental particle, in my opinion and belief.
 
Upvote 0

Justin Horne

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2004
980
16
35
✟16,228.00
Faith
Atheist
one love said:
All one needs to do is cut the distance in any fraction at a constant rate, once focus through some sort of highresolution electron microscope has been achieved. This means that you may be able to measure from point A to point B, but you will always be able to measure infinitely smaller. The universe therefore is infinite and therefore has no fundamental particle, in my opinion and belief.
An e- microscope would come no where near powerful enough to see a string. Even if an e- microscope was the most powerful and best it could ever become, it wouldn't be able to see string. This is primarily due to the fact strings are incredible much smaller than a light wave, or even an electron...
 
Upvote 0

Brian2944

Active Member
Sep 5, 2005
130
24
Georgia
✟7,880.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
M-theory does try to represent the creation of everything down to a single particle, not a being.

Being a Christian, I do not believe we will ever have the wisdom to past the physical world to the spiritual world through science. But is it possible this particle is not necessarily a simple particle, but an "access portal" God uses to supply all matter and resources to the physical world? Similar to how an air-conditioning vent would supply cool air to a room (we will never go past the vent, but to the point of supply).

Just a thought, of course I have nothing to back this up with so feel free to shoot it down :p
 
Upvote 0

Steve Petersen

Senior Veteran
May 11, 2005
16,077
3,390
✟162,912.00
Faith
Deist
Politics
US-Libertarian
I saw a program about M-theory on Discover Science. What an incredible show!

The thing that rocked me was that postulating an 11th dimension finally allowed mathematicians and physicists to get past the point of singularity with the Big Bang.

They also theorize that we live in a multiverse, not a universe; that there are infinite numbers of universes! Each universe could have its own laws of space/time/physics. Thus it is possible that nothing is impossible.
 
Upvote 0

Mongoose

So it goes.
Jan 17, 2004
1,914
31
38
Minnesota
✟17,244.00
Faith
Atheist
Justin Horne said:
An e- microscope would come no where near powerful enough to see a string. Even if an e- microscope was the most powerful and best it could ever become, it wouldn't be able to see string. This is primarily due to the fact strings are incredible much smaller than a light wave, or even an electron...

That's rather irrelevant to the point he was making. The e-microscope was merely a hypothetical case used to explain his point.

What he says is true, but I'm not exactly sure why it singles out the possibility of a "fundamental particle". He merely postulates that size is relative.
 
Upvote 0

Yamialpha

Celeritas
Oct 5, 2004
2,376
70
34
✟2,914.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Mongoose said:
Hold on a second. Superstring Theory, therefore God? I suppose you can interpret it as you will in such a way that it leads to God, but I doubt it deductively "prove" his existence.

That debate aside, there's still a huge debate in the physics community about whether or not this theory is actually a waste of time. I'm not particularly fond of the theory myself for reasons other than how fascinating it is, but I'm not deep enough in my physics education yet to truly mathematically analyze it for myself. I do like to joke that superstring theory is nothing more than a recruitment device for physicists. (Why, we could use the numbers so bad, they're probably willing to do anything to get people into this field!)

In effect, though, Superstring Theory can't really be "proof" of anything, because we're so unsure if it's even a valid theory!

Yes. Although there are many predictions made my superstring theory that we can test, it's estimated that it would take a particle accelerator the size of the galaxy (some say the size of the known universe) to find a string. Not exactly solid evidence of God.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ps139

Ab omni malo, libera nos, Domine!
Sep 23, 2003
15,046
818
New Jersey
Visit site
✟30,407.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
M-theory certainly doesn't rule out supernatural phenomena. In fact, the 11 or 12 dimensions it posits, and how they are next to each other, but not "noticeable" by each other would actually explain the possibility much supernatural phenomena.
 
Upvote 0

ps139

Ab omni malo, libera nos, Domine!
Sep 23, 2003
15,046
818
New Jersey
Visit site
✟30,407.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
It's just a mental construct, and it's not testable.
The jury is still out on whether or not it is science and not philosophy. Currently there is no way to prove or disprove it scientifically, but they are looking for ways to test it.
 
Upvote 0

RoboMastodon

Well-Known Member
Jul 6, 2004
515
36
34
✟8,340.00
Faith
Atheist
I know theological arguments can get pretty silly but damn.... Actually, one of the hypothesis postulated by M-theory is an ekpyrotic description of the big bang... one where the universe has no beginning. This is somewhat incompatible with Christian beliefs.
ps139 said:
The jury is still out on whether or not it is science and not philosophy. Currently there is no way to prove or disprove it scientifically, but they are looking for ways to test it.
LHC 2008
ps139 said:
M-theory certainly doesn't rule out supernatural phenomena. In fact, the 11 or 12 dimensions it posits, and how they are next to each other, but not "noticeable" by each other would actually explain the possibility much supernatural phenomena.
They aren't next to each other, they are orthogonal...that is the definition of a spatial dimension and not this has nothing to do with supernatural phenomenon it just means that the universe may be composed of more than the three dimensions we're used to but the others are so small that we can't detect them.
jayem said:
I'm no expert by any means, but it's my understanding that Superstring theory, while it may have some mathematical consistency, is actually somewhat like Creationism, or ID. It's just a mental construct, and it's not testable.
It at least tries to make predictions, and the results are derived from mathematics and physics (like all theoretical physics has been). The only problem is the technological barrier--we currently don't have the technology to test it. Hopefully we will within the next few years. Comparing M-Theory (the brainchild of hundreds of brilliant physicists and mathematicians) to Creationism/ID (completely made up by fundies) is an utmost tomfoolery.
Brian2944 said:
M-theory does try to represent the creation of everything down to a single particle, not a being.

Being a Christian, I do not believe we will ever have the wisdom to past the physical world to the spiritual world through science. But is it possible this particle is not necessarily a simple particle, but an "access portal" God uses to supply all matter and resources to the physical world? Similar to how an air-conditioning vent would supply cool air to a room (we will never go past the vent, but to the point of supply).

Just a thought, of course I have nothing to back this up with so feel free to shoot it down :p
Everything here is either incorrect or nonsensical.
 
Upvote 0

Locrian

Active Member
Dec 2, 2004
262
6
✟447.00
Faith
Atheist
RoboMastodon said:

Won't test any aspect of string theory (ST) or M theory! There really is no consensus among those in ST what testable predictions, if any, ST actually makes. They've actually had meetings where they are given imaginary results from the LHC and attempt to determine what they mean to string theory as an excersize. That is about the opposite of a prediction. Even given the galactic sized particle accelerators mentioned in this thread it is difficult to come up with any actual prediction from string theory. It used to be they could at least argue that you'd see something "stringy," but even that is on its way out.

Comparing M-Theory (the brainchild of hundreds of brilliant physicists and mathematicians) to Creationism/ID (completely made up by fundies) is an utmost tomfoolery.

Actually ID has recently been using ST as an example of why it's okay to have a "scientific theory" that makes no immediate testable predictions - maybe they have more in common than it first appears. ST is quickly becoming a big embarassment to physicists everywhere. You compare ST with other theoretical physics, but I'm not aware of any theoretical physics in the history of physics that, after 25 years, made no testable predictions at all.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RoboMastodon

Well-Known Member
Jul 6, 2004
515
36
34
✟8,340.00
Faith
Atheist
Locrian said:
Actually ID has recently been using ST as an example of why it's okay to have a "scientific theory" that makes no immediate testable predictions - maybe they have more in common than it first appears. ST is quickly becoming a big embarassment to physicists everywhere. You compare ST with other theoretical physics, but I'm not aware of any theoretical physics in the history of physics that, after 25 years, made no testable predictions at all.
Maybe M-Theory is just the really really unlucky =(. LHC should at least give us a tiny hint of whether or not it is true (or at least that what all those physics articles I read seem to state). Oh well, in any case I haven't invested much time into the theory for that reason, ones it becomes verified maybe I'll start studying it. Until then, QFT and GM will have to suffice.
 
Upvote 0

cubanito

Well-Known Member
Nov 16, 2005
2,680
222
Southeast Florida, US (Coral Gables near Miami)
✟4,071.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Brian2944 said:
I wanted to get some opinions on M-theory. As far as "theories of everything" goes it is new but actually it is 20-30 yrs old. Being a Christian I see something different into the theory. When cosmologist say that the 12th "string" could be the beginning of the universe and all gravity and energy radiate from that dimension, I think it could possibly be scientific proof of God. It goes far beyond what we experience and it seems like a source of everything in the universe.

On the other hand I believe heaven is a spiritual place and not a physical place, but could this be a "portal", if you will, that God uses to supply resources for the universe?

your thoughts?

This is tangential, but I think important. It is Christian belief that our final abode will NOT be heaven, but earth. Upon death we enter a spiritual state, which most Christians take as "being in heaven" and thus incorporeal (some such as 7th day adventists posit "soul-sleep", which is still immaterial and thus changes not the point I'm making).

However, the final hope of Christians is NOT Heaven, but "the resurrection of the FLESH". Not floating with aharp somewhere, but an actual physical body, immortal but in some ways resembling our present form, upon a new EARTH.

Thus, Heaven for the Christian is an intermediate state (i refer to Heaven, not purgatory or limbo). Now again, Christians differ on wether there is a Heaven, and the RC seems to have dropped it's support for limbo (the abode of the unbaptized infants), but again this has no bearing on the point I'm making. Both orthodox Jews and Bible believing Christians assert that our final destination is to inhabit a physical body.

Much confusion has existed in "popular" understanding of Christianity over the millenia over this point. I would venture to say the typical Christian thinks of their final resting place as Heaven. It is most definitely not been the teaching of either the Bible, Church councils or any traditional large group of any branch of Christianity, though I admit my grasp on Church History is tenous.

JR
 
Upvote 0

birdan

Regular Member
Jan 20, 2006
443
45
71
✟15,831.00
Faith
Seeker
Locrian said:
Actually ID has recently been using ST as an example of why it's okay to have a "scientific theory" that makes no immediate testable predictions - maybe they have more in common than it first appears. ST is quickly becoming a big embarassment to physicists everywhere. You compare ST with other theoretical physics, but I'm not aware of any theoretical physics in the history of physics that, after 25 years, made no testable predictions at all.

The science community should really get its act together regarding the word 'theory'. In the mathematical usage of the word (which is what theoretical physics really is), it is a theory, a la a theorem. In the scientific sense, it is just a hypothesis. Not to be confused with the everyday use of the word, which means 'a hunch'. No wonder people get confused over what a 'theory' is.

String theory is an attempt to rectify some problems in quantum mechanics and general relativity. Namely infintesimals. In the two current theories, 'things' can get infinitely small (singularities). When this happens, other things can get infinitely large. Thus the universe, according to quantum mechanics, started out as a singularity with infinite gravity, heat, etc., which most physicists concede is nonsense. String theory limits 'things' to getting no smaller than a Planck length, which is extremely small, but not infinitely small.
 
Upvote 0

Illuminatus

Draft the chickenhawks
Nov 28, 2004
4,505
364
✟14,062.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
birdan said:
The science community should really get its act together regarding the word 'theory'. In the mathematical usage of the word (which is what theoretical physics really is), it is a theory, a la a theorem. In the scientific sense, it is just a hypothesis. Not to be confused with the everyday use of the word, which means 'a hunch'. No wonder people get confused over what a 'theory' is.

Scientists and anyone who's even remotely educated know perfectly well what a theory is. If the general public is too lazy to use Google for three minutes, nuts to them.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Yamialpha

Celeritas
Oct 5, 2004
2,376
70
34
✟2,914.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
birdan said:
The science community should really get its act together regarding the word 'theory'. In the mathematical usage of the word (which is what theoretical physics really is), it is a theory, a la a theorem. In the scientific sense, it is just a hypothesis. Not to be confused with the everyday use of the word, which means 'a hunch'. No wonder people get confused over what a 'theory' is.

Most of those people are probably only guessing the definition of the word "theory" from hearing it used in dialogue. That's not the scientific community's shortfalling.

birdan said:
String theory limits 'things' to getting no smaller than a Planck length, which is extremely small, but not infinitely small.

1.616x10^-33 cm if my memory serves me right.
 
Upvote 0