It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Modern physics as a religion.

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 27 2010 @ 06:07 PM
More and more nowadays we hear about these zany concepts of time and space, multiverses , time travel, and dark matter. All these concepts are brought forth by scientist who , in my opinion, are akin to those fighting about whether ether was real or not in the 1800's. It seems we are being told to take these hypothesis as truth by faith only , with no shred of evidence to support .

Why is this happening ? Most likely because at this stage of science , Einsteins theories have taken us to their threshold and the phenomenon of what we are seeing no longer fits within them.

The purpose of this post is to discuss and debate these ideas in a coherent manner and to reveal if maybe there is actual truth behind these theories that are basically metaphysics in disguise.

Are we latching onto past progress like a long dead religion therefore impeding future progress?

Wasting much needed funding on dead -ends?

I feel we are and would like to see how you all think about these matters!


posted on May, 27 2010 @ 06:10 PM
Personally, there is a lot to be said about some of the newer theories that have been coming forward.

Quantum Mechanics introduces a brilliant new way to look at the way the Universe constructs itself as an information system. Quantum Entanglement is now providing new communication possibilities, teleporting matter and energy.

If people didn't believe such things possible we may never discover them. I think old science is dead science if it does not give way to the every expanding brilliance of man.

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 06:40 PM
It would be helpful if you tell us which theories you categorize under imaginary.

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 06:55 PM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

He does mention some metaphysics implication.

Originally posted by IamBoon
The purpose of this post is to discuss and debate these ideas in a coherent manner and to reveal if maybe there is actual truth behind these theories that are basically metaphysics in disguise.

This could mean the Observer Effect and measurement problem. Or strange physics such as found within quantum states where we do observe wave function collapse and entanglement.

Entanglement itself suggests something very metaphysical about the nature of matter, and yet we are seeing practical uses for something that sounds like magic.

Perhaps he needs to really clarify these mystical physicists and their theories, otherwise we can only speculate.

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 07:11 PM
None Locality... We are in all of the universe at the same time.. Each particle of who we are touches every other in creation..... Hence we have no location... Omni precence..... The universe happens because we observe it.... That is fact too.... But we have silicone chips etc that are a direct result of quantum mecachanics.... It is true.... So is einstein...... Mix both theories.....

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 07:54 PM
The basics of physics require the ability to make predictions based on calculations... there's nothing hokey or faith-based in that, quite the opposite.

IF they said "This is not a theory, this is FACT" yet back it up with no thing but "trust me's" then .. yah, it would be a religion...

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 08:20 PM

Originally posted by IamBoon
More and more nowadays we hear about these zany concepts of time and space, multiverses

Multiverses- no proof

String theory-no proof (same with membrane theory)

Most branches of physics have experiments and observations to back them up, but string theory is a notable exception. Even String theorists admit that.

Here's a screenshot from a video presentation on string theory:

What does this tell you? They've been working on it for decades and they don't know what it is? Shocking but true.

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 08:35 PM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
What does this tell you? They've been working on it for decades and they don't know what it is? Shocking but true.

You bring one of the most valid points when looking at known sciences vs unknown sciences. If we stop only at our known sciences and say that's it. That is all there is to this Universe, no need to look further... then we stop discovery.

If we look at "unknown science"... there is where we unlock the secrets.

Look how many thousands of years it took before an Toshiba labtop was invented. The correct answer is probably not 13.6 billion years.

However long it took, the fact remains it took time for Humans to understand an "unknown science" that once became obvious allowed science to create a labtop.

Physics, chemistry, biology have all contributed to how we have unlocked certain unknown sciences and then turned this knowledge into a means by which to create amazing technology.

That said, we are still only emerging as a species on what potential technology exists as "unknown technology". Speculate away at what that means, but I know you get it.

It's 2010 and humanity has unraveled a fraction of what is really "known" about the Universe and is still pioneering what it means to the rest of what is not known.

Some might want to say that Man has become god-like with technology, with knowledge. Who's to say though, it's really meaningless in another 10 billion years don't you think?

Where will man be then?

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 09:01 PM
While we don't know exactly what string theory is all about, that doesn't mean we should throw it all away as it has helped us progress as a species technologically, I think what we're going to see either an expansion of string theory that makes all the scientists wish they thought of it first because of its simplicity, or a complete overhaul of the cosmological model.
I'd like the first one due to it being easiest.

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 09:56 PM
I did clarify the scientific concepts. Dark matter - made up because nothing in Einsteins relativity can explain what is observed. Multiverse- made up to explain away the notion of a fine-tuned universe. Tine travel and parallel universes, concepts that require entirely made up elements and technology... at least for today's understanding.. I could go on. Science is about observing phenomenon and testing it to come to a conclusion.

These are all concepts that have no evidence yet are considered true and applicable to science. Mainly because any other possibility would nullify portions of already accepted science (relativity theory). It is lilke clinging onto a belief religiously in spite of contrary evidence which is exactly what science by nature should not include.

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:15 PM
Throwing away speculative theories maybe like quitting the tenets of science, science doesn't come to a "final" conclusion or theory, usually speculative theories build into more useful information, think of it more as public brainstorming. Some things can be useless until 100 years later. The answers seem not obvious to me. Science doesn't get into the business of what "is" it merely speculates about possibilities and probabilities, one can depend on verified studies but only in the sense that the conditions don't fluctuate as much as say a different atmosphere or planet or in space might produce a different set of results.

How you look at the evidence and the instruments you use have an effect on the results, if the only thing you use maybe your own brain you have to account for that in evaluating the validity of the results. Finally most theories appear more or less made up and can only account for validty as long as subsequent evidence confirms the results.

[edit on 27-5-2010 by bubbabuddha]

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:16 PM
Well there sure are groups that cling to physics as the basis of their beliefs.

There are some people making some damn fine money out of using mass hypnosis, and mixing it up with quantum mechanics, and neo-gnostism, the worst aspects of karma teachings, along with appeal to authority.

I'd suggest they need a punch in the head - but I probably am punching them in the head in some universe.

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:20 PM
reply to post by bubbabuddha

THe problem isn't speculative science it is speculative science being presented as matter of fact .

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:51 PM
reply to post by IamBoon

Facts maybe just as elusive, though just more reliable, who cares if someone thinks something maybe a "fact", who am I to judge, maybe I don't have nearly as much evidence as the presenter, maybe they have accessed to unpublished studies or something else classified by the federal governement. I'm not concerned with things that appear inadequate, many will take them as evidence of possible "secret technology" who am I to judge, clearly we don't have access to all information with regard to technology.

If anyone has a better solution to these people presenting information that clearly has no ability to go through verification, then please do so, don't just say it "doesn't exist" or that "everyone knows what are facts". That seems to imply everyone agrees on what current knowledge maybe circa may 27th 2010. Not everyone accumulates the same data let alone the same opinions about it, some people change their minds as well. Fads come and go, people will attach themselves to something just because it maybe new or different.

Last month some students discovered quantum effects at the level of viewing with the naked eye, these effects maybe occur not just under a microscope in a "special" domain of physics, it seems more likely and to me it doesn't seem obvious, yet many had incredible doubts about these effects occuring in any other larger macro setting and they probably still do which also seems valid as well, this was just one study. Maybe other studies have been done but I am unaware of it. Yes science can appear distorted, just take the "global warming" hysteria for example, quite a bit of money was tied up in the science fitting the "tax" systems proposed, so yeah a degree of skepticism helps one ferret out BS.

People still believe in governments and religion , I think "string theory" or "dark matter" maybe makes more sense than those two mythical systems , we ahve a long way to go, dogmatism seems like something that exists in spite of evidence to the contrary, a sort of belief system that maybe used to plug up the holes in science, same with theories sometimes, it doesn't mean they maybe not useful, it just shows our ignorance and some of us are just more certain of themselves about whatever they think, for obvious self centered reasons and to tie up loose ends.

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 12:40 AM
reply to post by hippomchippo

While we don't know exactly what string theory is all about, that doesn't mean we should throw it all away as it has helped us progress as a species technologically.

Could you furnish an example of a technological advance that was based on string theory?

The reason string theories are poor science is that they are not just unfalsified but unfalsifiable. There is no way to tell if string theory is true or not, therefore it is, as the OP speculates, essentially metaphysical, not scientific. It deals with matters beyond what is traditionally regarded as physical, and is therefore best described as metaphysics indulged in by theoretical physicists.

If a way could be found to test string theory experimentally, it could be brought into the realm of science - but since the theory makes nearly anything possible given the right set of initial conditions, it's not testable.

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 12:52 AM
Iamboon has a point. I'm also bothered in the way theories get presented as facts.
Usually this happens along with totally ridiculing any other possibility. Sort of like, in a dogmatic way.

I'll be back. Gotta work.

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 02:26 AM
I don't know if it is a religion, but some areas of contemporary physics are definitely philosophy. Science is about things which are empirically verifiable, things which some test in the world of human experience can possibly refute or confirm. Some physicists have declared that some parts of contemporary physics are literally unverifiable, there is no possible way to confirm or refute them. (It's not just that we don't have the technology, it's that a part of the theory is in no way testable by anyone with any type of technology.)

So, those parts of physics are not science per se. I would say they are philosophy, or the sub-field of philosophy known as metaphysics or ontology which attempts to describe what types of things exist. Unless these guys start worshiping unverifiable elements of their physics like religious people worship unverifiable entities of their dogma, I would not call it a religion, however.

new topics

top topics


log in