It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

M-theory: Doubts linger over godless multiverse

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   
September 14, 2010

STEPHEN HAWKING'S new book The Grand Design sparked a furore over whether physics can be used to disprove the existence of God. But few have noted that the idea at the core of the book, M-theory, is the subject of an ongoing scientific debate – specifically over the very aspect of the theory that might scrap the need for a divine creator.

That the laws of nature in our universe are finely tuned for life seems miraculous, leading some to invoke divine involvement. But if there is a multiverse out there – a multitude of universes, each with its own laws of physics – then the conditions we observe may not be unique.

Hawking suggests that M-theory, the leading interpretation of string theory, calls for a multiverse. Others are divided over the strength of this link. "My own opinion is that we don't understand the theory well enough to be able to say whether there is one single universe or a multitude of universes," says M-theorist Michael Duff of Imperial College London.


www.newscientist.com...



Faithful to Multiple Universes




Hawking is changing his mind about 'everything' these days, seems he can't make up his mind, it is all theory in my opinion and scientists can come up with anything they want, I would like to see some proof. There is none at least at this time and more then likely not in our lifetime if ever, maybe there are some things we are not met to know.

It makes more sense that there are multiverses to me, why would our universe if the only one out there.




posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 09:56 PM
link   


"It's dangerous to pin your beliefs on any theory of physics," Duff adds, "because it might turn out to be wrong. But if Stephen wants to stick his neck out, I wish him good luck."

I agree that Duff, Hawking has been sticking his neck out a lot recently, it is curious to me, it's almost like it's his theory of everything.


www.newscientist.com...



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:09 PM
link   
I do not understand how the potential for multi-verses, &/or "branes", somehow negates the existence of a Creator/God.

IMHO, it sounds merely more of the egocentric pretentiousness of Humanity, as though we somehow created and defined our own existence. That, or that the entity we know as God wouldn't possess the capability to propagate other beings/lifeforms, or Cosmos, or Galaxies, or Universes, a view which, I feel, only serves to contribute to the thus perpetuated disillusionment of our own perceived supremacy over that of other creatures &/or beings as a means of indulging a conditioned narcissism which is largely due to an enduring insecurity from our primal stage of existence.

Also, this very subject sounds as one more so suited to the Philosophy forum instead of here in the Science & Technology forum.

Just saying....



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   
I think Steven Hawking doth protest to much. I think in some secret or not so secret part of him SH would like to think that his condition is a part of random forces of the Multiverse maybe he hates the idea of a 'God' that would let that happen to him

and my take on it is the Multiverse is 'intelligent' but it doesn't notice or care for you . We are like fish fry , they start life as virtually microscopic little things some of them will never make it they will be eaten or they have genetic defects that make it impossible for them to live to adulthood sometimes they starve or succumb to disease. So the ones make it have received everything the Multiverse can give to them, can't complain about that

or as the lyrics to one of my favorite songs go 'How strange it is to be anything at all"AeroPlane Over the Sea ,by Neutral Milk Hotel



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by MrsBlonde
 





and my take on it is the Multiverse is 'intelligent' but it doesn't notice or care for you . We are like fish fry , they start life as virtually microscopic little things some of them will never make it they will be eaten or they have genetic defects that make it impossible for them to live to adulthood sometimes they starve or succumb to disease. So the ones make it have received everything the Multiverse can give to them, can't complain about that


I tend to agree with you, everything seems to be random, that intelligent design has made a big mess out of everything including what's out there, more like the chaos theory And we were just an after thought.

Thank you for posting.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Wow, so if we limit it to our own universe, life, existence, sentience, is hard to imagine. But if you put that up to a multiverse, and now there can be entire UNIVERSES without sentient life, knowing there are countless universes in the multiverse. It now begins to become mathematically correct that there would be sentient life among all the universes in the multiverse (we just happen to be experiencing it and though it feels common and everyday, it's not, it's inconceivably rare). What's good for the religious side of this, is that this place where we have life is very special and could be the only place in THIS universe and many others to have life.

Who knows, I don't think we are alone in this universe, but this idea really makes it easier to believe how sentient life exists, really really easier.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by just an allusion
 





I do not understand how the potential for multi-verses, &/or "branes", somehow negates the existence of a Creator/God.


Most scientists negate the existence of a Creator/G-d, if they do believe it they don't/won't admit it. I think I understand why they don't. Nothing is ever as it seems.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   
I think it's great people take the time to put these ideas and their research out there for interested people.

I do think it's great to also keep an open mind.

Like how do a find my way to a universe and a planet where I am the only guy, and all the women cook and clean?

Tell me that please Steven!

That would definately be worth the price of 14.95 for the hard cover deluxe edition.

Interesting subject starred and flagged.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


LoL, exactly. Anytime you are around a know-it-all like Stephen, it's best to try to learn all you can.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:04 PM
link   
I guess a lot of discovering is happening here and there and some on their way and suggesting a lot of interesting results which were not excepted before. Slowly science fiction is becoming science fact at a record rate guess thats why reputable scientists are excepting a lot of possibilities all over the world. This is interesting time we live …...



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
I think it's great people take the time to put these ideas and their research out there for interested people.

I do think it's great to also keep an open mind.


Exactly Proto, I don't think Steven is philosophizing as another poster suggested, these scientists take their theories very seriously just as Philosophers like Plato did in his day.

Thank you for posting my friend.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Aquarius1
 


I think a lot of people try to determine the possiblity of life happening in our universe. Better may be to say "within" our own universe. Will the right conditions meet to make life? That's the question.

But when you put it to countless universes, within a multiverse, the basic idea of life which was sort of improbable, becomes quite probable once you have trillions or more universes each filled with trllions of galaxies, and trillions of stars, and many trilllions of planets, etc.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by just an allusion
 

I do not understand how the potential for multi-verses, &/or "branes", somehow negates the existence of a Creator/God.

It works like this.

The universe we observe around us seems to be fine-tuned for life. That's because the way the laws of physics (such as the law of gravity) work depends on the value of certain numbers called the fundamental constants. We have to plug those numbers into the equations to get the sums to come out right--that is, to make the answers to the equations fit the universe we observe around us. If these values were different, the laws of physics would create a universe very different from the one we know--a universe that probably would not be capable of evolving and supporting life.

Now, the values of the fundamental constants are only known from observation. No theory predicts them, which means there's no scientific reason (that we know of) why these constants should have the values they do, and not some other values. Only, if these numbers were different, we shouldn't be around to measure them!

That makes it look as if Someone carefully plugged in the right numbers to create a universe that would be hospitable to life. That Someone would, of course, be God. Not the fundamentalist Christian God of the Bible, but God all the same. The universe would have to have had a Creator.

M-theory, however, predicts that the processes that formed our universe actually formed many (anything up to 10^500 last I heard) other universes too. The initial conditions (immediately post-Big Bang) would be different for each of those universes. They would evolve differently over time and would quickly end up looking very different from one another. Some would collapse a few seconds after the Big Bang. Others would be cold, lifeless, ever-expanding wastes. The cause of this variety would be that, in each of these universes, the fundamental constants had different values.

If this is true, it means that no-one sat down and knowingly chose the values of the fundamental constants to make our universe suitable for life. Ours just one of a multiverse of universes based on all possible values of the constants. It just happens, by accident, that our universe (and perhaps a few others) evolved life. God didn't deliberately set up the universe to make it possible.


IMHO, it sounds merely more of the egocentric pretentiousness of Humanity, as though we somehow created and defined our own existence.

Actually, it's the exact opposite. To believe that the whole universe was carefully created by God so that we could exist in it is pretty egocentric and pretentious, surely? In fact, it is nothing but the old geocentric view of the cosmos, held by the Catholic Church and just about everybody else before Copernicus proved that Earth was not the centre of the universe. The multiple universes of M-theory, like the theory of cosmic inflation, are an attempt to make our observations of the cosmos agree with the Copernican Principle--that is, to show that there is nothing special about Earth or the creatures that live on it.


This very subject sounds as one more so suited to the Philosophy forum instead of here in the Science & Technology forum.

No, this is very much the correct forum for the topic. However, theoretical physics and philosophy are kissing cousins. If his famous book, A Brief History of Time, Prof. Hawking makes it very clear that he and other theoretical physicists consciously work on ideas that they hope will eliminate God from their picture of the universe. Religious folk may be a bit scandalized by this, but it is in keeping with why we do science in the first place--observing the obvious underlying order of things and trying to understand where it comes from and how it works. If we get to a point where we can't find an explanation for the natural order, we'd have to throw up our hands and say, 'okay, science and human understanding stop here, the only possible explanation is God did it.'

'God', to a physicist, is just another term for 'I don't know'.

edit on 16/9/10 by Astyanax because: clarify. Hope it worked.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 12:05 AM
link   
...we look upon the 4th dimension as we gaze past our own galaxy... each Galaxy beyond ours is as like our own only the age and paths of the galaxies differ... There could be a galaxy which looks almost identical to our own out there... the Unvierse itself is the true solid .. we are only solid because of the black hole( if we can call it that) ...The black hole could be more than what we realize.. may be the universe itself... for we are draged behind this so called black hole at the speed of expandtion... The galaxy we are in has been slowed to a stop...which lead to the creation of solid matter within the galaxy... the black hole or *Universe" which upon its' creation from the end of the first dimension that circled in on itself causing refratcion of the first dimension and the big bang alowing for the first dimension to head off in all directions creating the first true solid sphere which moves at the speed of expandtion... the black hole is merely the product of the draging effect upon the galaxy as it is dragged at the speed of expandtion within it... the galaxy is the singularity which cork screws through space and time... Galaxies move beyond the speed of light.. as we obverse light within the glaxies or even out side of it the galaxy there is an slowing down effect upon light masking its true speed from us as we observe it...



edit on 16-9-2010 by Vonour because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Nature can do no more than uplift the glory of God.

With that aside, and as a physicist, if M-theory can not balance its equations without inducing multiple [disjointed] dimensions, it has a problem.

Nothing exists beyond our universe: that is to say that "everything that effects us, is our universe." and the thought of anything beyond that is fantasy.




edit on 16-9-2010 by NEMOats because: clarifications



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 07:25 AM
link   
Wormholes
Blackhole passageways
Infinite multiverses

Sounds like faith-based thinking to me.

What no one seems to care about is that folks like Hawkings refuse to acknowledge the need for a physical genesis of any kind. It's like they build their houses on rumors of a foundation, and then add external support bracings when they notice the thing leaning.

If you don't lay the foundation, you can't actually build the house, and no one seems to be capable of accepting that fact when it comes to creation or evolution or intelligent design or this M-theory thing.

What is the existential unit? In what manner does it manifest? What does it offer the structured whole in scalable consistency? Organized structure can't exist without the unit, so what is the unit and what is it that stacks one unit upon the other?

The problem with this entire debate is that the salesmen have hijacked it, and their marketing plan is to drain our attention away from the question by replacing that question with one that involves the layered complexity of their withering semantics. As if word count can make up for a lack of clear thinking.

For the level of sophistication - organized, consistent sophistication - that exists in your chair right now, chaos theory is a non-starter, and infinite amounts of monkeys shaking infinite numbers of multiverses containing infinite numbers of cats and coathangers won't create what hasn't got a logical capacity to develop as a consistent redundancy. What that means is that something has established order, and whether that something is intelligent or simply the inescapable impact of Styrofoam packing peanuts in the form of registered relationships between causal intersections, it exists, persists, and the result is you, as you shake your head and dismiss the need for any of what I'm suggesting.

The only place to start is at the beginning, and until someone does, we'll always be handing the debate over to magical thinkers, be they religionists or theoretical physicists.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 

Nice polemic, but are you sure you understand the cosmological models put forward by Hawking and other theoretical physicists? Do you know what are the foundations on which those models rest?

You seem (I judge this from your words) to be the kind of person who would actually get quite a kick out of learning about the models, and the foundations of fact (and--yes--conjecture) on which they are built. It's fairly clear from your post that you're not familiar with this material. Yet I think you would find it very interesting.

Seriously--drop the superior attitude and find out more. Judgements based on ignorance are never a good idea.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aquarius1

Most scientists negate the existence of a Creator/G-d, if they do believe it they don't/won't admit it. I think I understand why they don't. Nothing is ever as it seems.


True, sometimes it is more, all...so...much...MORE!



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Thank you for posting, here is some information on the scientific model opposed to the scientific method.

Scientific modelling is the process of generating abstract, conceptual, graphical and/or mathematical models. Science offers a growing collection of methods, techniques and theory about all kinds of specialized scientific modelling. A scientific model can provide a way to read elements easily which have been broken down to a simpler form.

Modelling is an essential and inseparable part of all scientific activity, and many scientific disciplines have their own ideas about specific types of modelling. There is little general theory about scientific modelling, offered by the philosophy of science, systems theory, and new fields like knowledge visualization.

More at link



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by just an allusion

Originally posted by Aquarius1

Most scientists negate the existence of a Creator/G-d, if they do believe it they don't/won't admit it. I think I understand why they don't. Nothing is ever as it seems.


True, sometimes it is more, all...so...much...MORE!


Thank you for posting, could you elaborate on so...much..MORE? We live in a world where so much is hidden from us, treated like children and told it's not good for us.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join