M-Theory/String Theory

Disclaimer: I'll apologize ahead of time and let you all know I've been drinking and smoking quite heavily... in case I say some stupid senseless shit lol.


So anyways, I've researched the basics of the M-theory and I genuinely feel like that is the legitimate answer to the creation of the universe. It's an incredibly complicated scientific theory that I only partially understand, but I find it interesting how sound the findings are, yet how few people are even aware of this theory or the scientific thoughts behind it.

I've always questioned the idea of "infinity". I've never truly believed in it, so I couldn't beleive the universe is infinite. I knew there was something beyond the universe. Well, we do know for a fact that the universe is expanding at an exponential rate. We can see the "universe" as we know it, in it's entirety, with its region bound by the Hubble Volume... what's outside of that region is receding from the person observing it at a speed greater than light.... but it's clear that there IS something... we just have no way of knowing what IT is.

If you've never heard of the M or string theory, watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pubb3QA_t1I

I just skimmed through it, but I'm pretty sure it's an easy to understand summary of the basics...


I'm not necessarily an atheist, but I'm interested in what religious people think about this. I was raised in a very conservative Episcopal household (spent the first 13 years of my life in private christian school) so I'm very exposed to that... side of the equation, you could say. I've always been extremely logical and I just find more concrete evidence in the m-theory than anything else.

Thoughts??

god took a shit. here we are. i have just solved all of your problems and questions to existence. ahaha, ive been drinking too. fuckin corona

lol good stuff. all I have is rolling rock and midori.... midori is fucking gross so I'm trying to figure out what to do with it haha.

i got shit faced and spoke to my neighbor about existence. we finished with the understanding that everything was created through consciousness and the idea of creation. i am a part of you and you are a part of me. you are what i am not, and i am what you are not. i like quantum mechanics. thanks for bringing this up.

eww, yeah midori is fucking nasty, bahaha, i just laughed writing that. and im sorry. i have much sympathy for you, ahahaha

BygonEra said:

Disclaimer: I'll apologize ahead of time and let you all know I've been drinking and smoking quite heavily... in case I say some stupid senseless shit lol.


So anyways, I've researched the basics of the M-theory and I genuinely feel like that is the legitimate answer to the creation of the universe. It's an incredibly complicated scientific theory that I only partially understand, but I find it interesting how sound the findings are, yet how few people are even aware of this theory or the scientific thoughts behind it.

I've always questioned the idea of "infinity". I've never truly believed in it, so I couldn't beleive the universe is infinite. I knew there was something beyond the universe. Well, we do know for a fact that the universe is expanding at an exponential rate. We can see the "universe" as we know it, in it's entirety, with its region bound by the Hubble Volume... what's outside of that region is receding from the person observing it at a speed greater than light.... but it's clear that there IS something... we just have no way of knowing what IT is.

If you've never heard of the M or string theory, watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pubb3QA_t1I

I just skimmed through it, but I'm pretty sure it's an easy to understand summary of the basics...


I'm not necessarily an atheist, but I'm interested in what religious people think about this. I was raised in a very conservative Episcopal household (spent the first 13 years of my life in private christian school) so I'm very exposed to that... side of the equation, you could say. I've always been extremely logical and I just find more concrete evidence in the m-theory than anything else.

Thoughts??

Click to expand...

wow! that caught my interest...I'm gonna throw this out there,nothing new under the sun what was will be and already is, or what is , was, and will be.

...for me, God is the unseen while nature is the visible aspect (of "it"). So, no qualms studying on either side of the partition here. I don't have to believe or not believe to find interest in what makes this whole place tick.

...sometimes ideas overlap.

"In the Heaven of Indra, there is said to be a network of pearls, so arranged that if you look at one you see all the others reflected in it. In the same way each object in the world is not merely itself but involves every other object and in fact IS everything else. In every particle of dust, there are present Buddhas without number."

M-theory explains how universes are created with random cosmological constants. Many Worlds explains how each of those universes forks into countless parallel universes via quantum decoherence.

Through this process, anything which could ever be eventually gets created.

although parallel universes dont bring the law of gravity into play. thats a big problem with many theories

Ballsonrawls said:

although parallel universes dont bring the law of gravity into play. thats a big problem with many theories

Click to expand...

It does! Go to the video starting at about 29:00... Dark energy itself has a gravity pull, and that's like... most of the universe.

Alcohology, Tetrahydrocannabinology & highly technical cosmology . what a great combo!
also aabout two shots away from having some real fun!


Now that's interesting & to me it seems that all the bits of information that we do have & know to be true ,through science,....... still doesn't add up to any "concrete" conclusion without having to revise the whole of Einstein's theory. It also seems that the math still ultimately implodes on the present theories & that the progress made towards conclusion only multiplies the complicated problems & questions. As the statement mentioned , in the V link provided,..." when there's no scientific information to measure...at what point does theory become philosophy?"


I don't exactly have a Theory at the moment but am very interested/fascinated by this type of Science & Theories of the likes. Coincidentally ,the Last name actually even translates to "Star".


Being Native American .....I'm not what would be exactly considered as religious in the sense of believing in only one universal god. I would say it's more like spiritually believing in all things. That Everything is energy & is connected in the circle of life. Including all the galaxies of the Universe &/or it's parallels.
I just need to know exactly whats going on.

I also can't wrap my head around infinity & You mention everything beyond scope capabilities traveling away ,faster than light.
In standard physical theories, no information can travel faster than the speed of light . Do you believe that light is not a constant? That cosmic inflation explains & is the answer for the horizon problem?
It is amazing that we can gather info from portions of the universe that are outside of each others respective particle horizon.

CMB. "Blame it on the Juice" ~ J.F~

The speed of light is not a constant nor is it an absolute. It's a mathematical approximation like everything else in science, close enough to reality for us to develop working models. We don't know for sure if the Universe is expanding from a central point. We don't know if the "Laws of physics" apply throughout the Universe, everywhere at all times.

It's fine to talk about this kind of topics, as long as you don't attach too much credit to it. This thread is about metaphysics, not physics, as I don't think any of you tackled the math behind all those fancy theories. This is not a criticism nor an insult. Spoken language will fail in carrying enough meaning.

Our scientific knowledge is the best understanding we have for now, it's nof definite and it's based on approximations. We've come a long way since Newtonian Physics, but we still live in a world where our worldview is Aristotelian, Euclidian and Newtonian, this is a major cause of human suffering.

Right, don't attach too much credit to science, I mean what has science ever done for us.

The speed of light is not an approximation, it has been measured and to the best of our knowledge, it does appear to be a constant. If you claim otherwise, you need to provide the counter-evidence. The universe does not expand from single point, not a single physicist would make that claim, it expands from all points, and there is no 'center.' We don't KNOW the laws of physics operate the same throughout the universe, but it is a good assumption that without, we would not be able to do physics in the first place.

Heisenberg and Schrodinger were headed to Vegas, when they were pulled over. Cop smells something suspicious and asks to look in the trunk. Cop says, “Do you know there’s a dead cat in your trunk?” Schrodinger angrily replies, “Well we do now, you jerk!” The confused officer then told Heisenberg that he clocked them at exactly 90 MPH. Heisenberg replied, “Thanks a lot, idiot! Now we’re totally lost!”

mindphuk said:

Right, don't attach too much credit to science, I mean what has science ever done for us.

The speed of light is not an approximation, it has been measured and to the best of our knowledge, it does appear to be a constant. If you claim otherwise, you need to provide the counter-evidence. The universe does not expand from single point, not a single physicist would make that claim, it expands from all points, and there is no 'center.' We don't KNOW the laws of physics operate the same throughout the universe, but it is a good assumption that without, we would not be able to do physics in the first place.

Click to expand...

I never said that we shouldn't attach too much credit to science, I said that we shouldn't attach too much credit to pseudo-scientific interpretations of scientific discoveries as discussed in this thread, major difference here, it's the clear distinction that exist between physics and metaphysics. I never said that physicists are making assumptions about a single-point expansion, it's a common misconception that is upheld by a majority of people who have no scientific knowledge and this is exactly the point I was trying to make. You should work on your reading comprehension.

As I said before our scientic knowledge is an approximation that is close enough for us to develop working models. Assuming the "Laws of Physics" are the same throughout the universe is convenient and it is accurate enough to work in our frame of references, but upholding this assumption as absolute is entering cloud cuckoo land.

You should study the nature of mathematics and physics, and not those youtube videos about Quantum Mechanics.

Selah said:

I never said that we shouldn't attach too much credit to science, I said that we shouldn't attach too much credit to pseudo-scientific interpretations of scientific discoveries as discussed in this thread, major difference here, it's the clear distinction that exist between physics and metaphysics.

Click to expand...

Not in the post that I responded to. You made no mention of pseudo-science. String theory is physics, not metaphysics. Learn the difference.

I never said that physicists are making assumptions about a single-point expansion, it's a common misconception that is upheld by a majority of people who have no scientific knowledge and this is exactly the point I was trying to make. You should work on your reading comprehension.

Click to expand...

Maybe you should work on writing more clearly. My reading comprehension is fine. You said, "We don't know for sure if the Universe is expanding from a central point."
This implies that this is a claim of science. It is not. The point I am making is that we DO know for sure that the universe is not expanding from a single point.

As I said before our scientic knowledge is an approximation that is close enough for us to develop working models. Assuming the "Laws of Physics" are the same throughout the universe is convenient and it is accurate enough to work in our frame of references, but upholding this assumption as absolute is entering cloud cuckoo land.

Click to expand...

It is a good assumption with plenty of evidence to support that it is true. Care to enlighten us as to why it's crazy to uphold such a reasonable and useful assumption?

You should study the nature of mathematics and physics, and not those youtube videos about Quantum Mechanics.

Click to expand...

You should know who you are talking to before you say such idiotic things.

String theory is physics, random people talking about it on a internet forum cannot be considered as hard science nor physics hence metaphysics. If I say that the double-split experiment is a demonstration that matter and energy can display characteristics of both waves and particles it is physics, if I go on by saying this clearly shows that consciousness is inherent to matter and that those particles are conscious of being observed it is a poor exercise in metaphysics. I hope you see the difference.

It's possible that my choice of words was a bit odd, I'm french an getting the point across is not always easy. It is important to keep in mind that the meaning of my words resides in what I intend them to be not in how you interpret them. I was trying to denounce the lack of scientic knowledge that leads people to uphold false assumptions, it's a bit similar to people refuting the evolution while lacking a basic understanding of the concept.

I never said that it was not a good assumption, it is convenient and it is accurate enough to work in our frame of reference, but seeing this as absolute is sheer speculation, it's perfectly fine to believe it as long as you keep in mind that further data and more precise observation could lead to a complete overhaul of our scientific understanding. That's a key element of the scientific method and you should be well aware of it.

After reading pages and pages of pseudo-scientific ramble on different forums you'll know why I assumed you had "educated" yourself on youtube. I was not trying to offend you and it is possible that I was wrong, I have no problem with that. But I'm sure you also experienced this before, people talking like they have a profound understanding of physics due to them speculating about a video they saw on youtube, you know the kind of video about Quantum Mechanics with erroneous assumptions and "impressive" presentations.

string theory, double slit. quantum physics, not physics. much of it is only theory but its been 100% accurate.

Selah said:

String theory is physics, random people talking about it on a internet forum cannot be considered as hard science nor physics hence metaphysics. If I say that the double-split experiment is a demonstration that matter and energy can display characteristics of both waves and particles it is physics, if I go on by saying this clearly shows that consciousness is inherent to matter and that those particles are conscious of being observed it is a poor exercise in metaphysics. I hope you see the difference.

Click to expand...

Yet that is not what was being done in this thread. AFAICT, no one had strayed into the realm of metaphysics, yet you blithely declare that is what this thread is about. Just because most of these posters do not know or understand the math behind the theory does not automatically make the discussion metaphysical.
The video in the OP had an actual physicist that works on the theory explaining it. The fact that M-theory touches on some metaphysical concepts is undeniable but so does evolution and the BBT. yet I doubt you would be here claiming a discussion about common ancestry is metaphysics.

It's possible that my choice of words was a bit odd, I'm french an getting the point across is not always easy.

Click to expand...

If you think your English language skills might not be precise enough to get your point across, maybe you should consider that before attacking others of reading comprehension problems.

It is important to keep in mind that the meaning of my words resides in what I intend them to be not in how you interpret them. I was trying to denounce the lack of scientic knowledge that leads people to uphold false assumptions, it's a bit similar to people refuting the evolution while lacking a basic understanding of the concept.

Click to expand...

No. You need to keep in mind that your intention may not be clear BECAUSE of your inadequate use of words. Readers should not have to be mind-readers, we should not have to guess at intent when you write something that doesn't leave much room for ambiguity. It's fine to say that you meant something else than what you wrote yet your explanation here is not doing that, it is doubling down on the incorrect comments you made.

I never said that it was not a good assumption, it is convenient and it is accurate enough to work in our frame of reference, but seeing this as absolute is sheer speculation, it's perfectly fine to believe it as long as you keep in mind that further data and more precise observation could lead to a complete overhaul of our scientific understanding. That's a key element of the scientific method and you should be well aware of it.

Click to expand...

Once again, if the assumption is not absolute, then we have a big problem. We wouldn't merely be overhauling our scientific understanding, it would break down completely. However, any good scientist understands from the start that it still is an assumption. Speculation and assumption are not the same. We have very good reasons for relying on this assumption, as it is backed up by countless lines of evidence. That is the opposite of speculation.

After reading pages and pages of pseudo-scientific ramble on different forums you'll know why I assumed you had "educated" yourself on youtube.

Click to expand...

I have no knowledge of your personal history and what you have read on other forums. I can only go by what I have seen here and you should have been able to do the same. If you had spent just a few minutes researching my post history or spent any time at all on this forum, you may possibly have learned something about me. You should be ashamed to have made such a snap judgement about someone you have never dialogued with before.

I was not trying to offend you and it is possible that I was wrong, I have no problem with that. But I'm sure you also experienced this before, people talking like they have a profound understanding of physics due to them speculating about a video they saw on youtube, you know the kind of video about Quantum Mechanics with erroneous assumptions and "impressive" presentations.

Click to expand...

I do understand it but I also am able to distinguish the people that learn their material from quality sources vs. suspect sources by what they post. I don't automatically assume they don't know what they are talking about from the very first post, except maybe when people make idiotic claims like the speed of light is an approximation or that the universe is expanding from a central point.
If anyone seems to have learned their physics from Youtube, it appears to be you.