Will String theory eliminate God ?

Ha ha, no I was just saying I don’t know everything about everything, unlike you and your groupies think you do. Too bad you have to use personal attacks to hide your inability via ignorance to discuss the OP.

RevA

 

I don't have any idea why you are telling me this. Do you like to say we know something about the natural laws 'inside' of black holes?

 

It seems that some scientists in trying to explain phenomena have got you hot under the collar because theyve inadvertently undermined the notion of a specific point in time for the start of the universe.

Thus in your mind they would seek to undermine God's existence.

However, your premise is silly simply because we dont know whether or not God needs a universe to begin in time or not. Indeed for all we know God, being so awesome, could be well outside the concept of time itself and therefore theres little need for it to seem undermined by string theory whether or not there's evidence for it yet.

Further, you have quite an audacity to paint normal decent scientists as somehow having a wider political agenda other than simply the advencement of science. I would postulate that others in the world do not share your need for such sin.

Cheers

Creation

 

The mathematics of relativity clearly indicates that a black hole is a true Euclidean point, there are reasons to doubt that this is the actual state of affairs.

Nevertheless, some string theorists have suggested that a better understanding of physics might require us to rethink our notions of something and nothing in much the way you described. Brian Greene suggested that we might have to think of the cosmic egg as somewhere between existing and not existing.

 

Good, even great questions statements! Hey don’t knock you job, it gives you time to think. Just like Einstein who loved his first jobs as a patent clerk because it gave him time to daydream and think. That you even complete such things indicate an above avg. intellect.If you are a machinist or a good fabricator you use the same math that Einstein used (along with other math which he aborted) i.e. geometry.

First we must ask; what is a black hole? When a star about 12 times the mass of our sun runs out of fuel and collapses itself to zero volume and infinite density it is on its way to becoming a black hole. As it shrinks it creates what is known as a "singularity." Around the singularity is a region where the force of gravity is so strong that not even light can escape. It is therefore called a black hole, and its surface is called the "event horizon." information can not easily escape the Black hole**, so what that goes on past the event horizon is theory. (event horizon = an imaginary border/line where if anything including light passes it can not get back out and is crushed to an infinite volume by the singularity). Our science fails at the event horizon. So a black hole has mass and space but its crushed to an infinitely small point.

Time is related to space. Inside a black hole space is reduced to an infinitely small volume so time does not have an arrow. Time does not start or stop. Astonishingly according to physics intuitive time does not really exist. An egg should break just as often as it un-breaks! I might add that time only appears to 'stop' according to an observer! If someone could survive a trip into a black hole time would seem to pass normally and if he could watch the outside universe he would see stars age and die in seconds and theoretically see the end of the universe as his velocity became almost light speed! However if we watched him fall into the black hole we would see him slow and appear to stop at the event horizon he would appear to hang there 'forever'! BTW time does not really start and stop. Its difficult to visualize but time while does not stop or start no more than ‘space’ does it surprisingly does have an ‘arrow‘. However when combined with space ie space-time is just a coordinate, a dimension. What we perceive as time flowing is an illusion brought on by our physical bodies, and the arrow of time.

The virtual particle doesn’t come from 'nothing'. (See +++ for a better defination of virtural particle) It is one of a pair, one is in real space time while its brother is obeying the laws of QFT and not in real space-time, it is in what is known as 'superposition'. This virtual particle is the only thing that can ‘dodge’ the terrible grip of the black holes gravity, and can not always do that. When it happens its called Hawking Radiation and eventually will cause the star BH to evaporate and lose information.

** Information is not lost forever as Hawking first thought.

+++ A more technical defination of a virtual particle; A virtural particle is a so called massless particle and include such as things as photons. Even though they are called massless, they do not have mass (which may be either positive or negative) and are thought to be off mass shell. These V particles are allowed to have mass (which consists of ‘loaned energy‘) because they existence is fleeting, which in turn gives them a limited ‘span‘. They are obeying the uncertainty principle an aspect of quantum theory. It allows the existence of such particles of loaned energy, so long as their energy, multiplied by the time they exist, is a fraction of Planck's constant. Or you may can Google define massless particles to obtain a paper that defines virtual particles.

RevA

 

Because you obviously have an opinion that does not take into account the theoretical description of the nature of black holes.

It is only theory, but a theory whose other parts actually do predict and describe the nature of the observed universe. Like Einstiens special relativity theory, it will remain "only" a theory until such time we have advanced our knowledge and capablities to prove its myriad conclusions thru experimentation.

 

Your post has several inaccuracies, but it is more accurate than I expected.

 

Speaking of black holes:

Black hole caught in act of swallowing a star

 

"This still photograph from a NASA video animation depicts the supermassive black hole Swift J1644+57 eating a big star, a process that scientists witnessed for the first time using the Swift satellite."

I see you are still being sucked in to those black hole cartoons. That is about par for you.

 

In his opinion he ( and I) does not take into account the theoretical description of the nature of flying spaghetti monster. We are just curious to have a glimpse at such.

 

String theory is ridiculous first off, it doesn't have just one unprovable clause but thousands.

From a scientific standpoint a cyclical universe or multiverse doesn't make any sense. First we have to deal with the fact that infinite has never been observed or cannot possibly exist outside the logic of math. Then we have the problem of causality. If time and space are infinite as string theory suggests, they had no cause to exist. When we have to throw causality out the window to do science we are no longer doing science.

To defend the inevitable god is infinite too argument. Science is a practice which is meant to understand and explain things, science is useless in understanding god.

Now, let's say the universe is infinite, then einstein was probably right and the universe is god, because only something supernatural can be infinite. Further, in one of these multiverses, each with a different law of physics and some with extraordinary probability anomolies. On the scale of infinite, god(s) must exist in one or some of these universes.

So basically atheists are wrong in any universe we live in.

 

No actually I was asking a question. I do have issues of the dual standard of some science, i.e. of some theories being accepted and others rejected, but other than that I am not angry only quizzically infinitely curious. And if string theory is correct it will not undermine the existence of God IMO but may shake up my ideas of the KCA.

Well its correct that God may be so far advanced that we know absolutely nothing about him or it and worse we may never be able due to our dim wit to know anything about him. However I believe, my religion is Christianity and the religion gives me very specific attributes of what God is and what he is like etc. Lastly I would rather ponder the unknowable rather than saying "forget it, our science cant go there!" If we took that to heart we would know nothing at all! At one time all of the natural world was beyond our science.

Its an opinion gleaned from a lifetime of observation and from being in the system. Only someone that is blinded by the light of sciences dim advances would think similar to your ideas of metaphysics and religious belief. Lastly of course some don't share my beliefs! It would be a sad world if it were totallt populated by 'yes men'

Likewise~

RevA

 

Hi venik, I agree with you. And the fudging that some physicists use acceptable in the realm of math but they do not translate into the real world, unless one is exceedingly lucky such as one of my heroes, Einstein who with his fudge factoring cosmological constant turned out to be an accurate assessment of our natural world.

Great observations and very good comments! I agree. You seem to be knowledgeable about string theory do you work in the field? I am a theist and while I hold an MA, my studies were and are* related to theology (At my night school rate I should have a PhD in ten or twenty years ha ha) as an undergrad I received both an BS and a BA). I know the basics of string theory and related science such as QFT etc. I am a serious amateur astronomer, so I may rail against the misconceptions of secular science I do love science when it isn’t used to push God out of the universe, so to speak.

I can not agree, unless you are saying that empirical science is at this point in time not a good tool to understand God. Science does go out on a limb and attempt to define things that touch the metaphysical . It seems at the limits of science the metaphysical is waiting in the wings. However the trouble is metaphysics do not normally produce tangible empirical results, because its concerned with atemporal intangible things that may not be part of the natural world.

If you want to PO off a secular minded string theorists just say that God is libel to be in at least one universe if there are infinite universes. Infinite universe theories are as silly as the most far out fairy tale. The horror of it all is the brain drain string theory is causing. I am afraid these bright students and full on researchers will spend my lifetime and theirs trying to make string theory work. They could be studying something truly awe inspiring, ie metaphysics...ha ha~

So basically atheists are wrong in any universe we live in.[/QUOTE]

Yes, if they have faith in string theory. However they by not believing in GID are wrong about the reality that is our universe.

RevA

 

If the FSM had the attributes of God it could be God. The form that God takes is irrelevant as per Gödel’s ontological argument for the existence of God.

RevA

 

What are the inaccuracies?

BTW, you shouldn’t be surprised I am too educated for my own good, choosing science as my first field of interest. I majored in astronomy but found Calculus was not my favorite subject. Anyway I was more interested in metaphysics, philosophy and such (thank you Gödel) as choose theology as my Masters goal that I recently completed. (hopefully a PhD is on the menu as well). Today as I said in a post I am a serious amateur astronomy. Hey the Vatican has a fine observatory maybe I could indulge my major love (God and religion) and my minor love, astronomy, there?

RevA

 

String theory has serious problems, but you should understand why it was so enticing in the first place to so many mathematicians and physicists who are way more brilliant than you. One of the most provocative precursors to string theory was when Kaluza recast relativity in 5 dimensions (the original is in 4 dimensions) and derived Maxwell's equations for electromagentism from it. It might take a while for you to realize how astounding this result is.

False. It depends on what kind of cycle you're talking about.

hence God does not exist, right? Do you even read what you type?

No we don't. Quantum physics has cast serious doubt on classical causality.

String theory does not suggest this. Logic suggests it. You clearly know diddly about string theory.

God has no cause to exist.

No problem. Causity is easily rejected.

True. But that science can't help doesn't mean there is a God. Give me a reason to think there is a God.

Nonsense. You have no idea what you're talking about.

You're randomly combining tidbits of different hypothese that have no relation to each other. It's called "pseudoescientific gobbeldygook."

Best not to speak of things you are obviously quite ignorant about.

 

Several things you say about virtual particles are wrong. For instance, you conflate virtual particles and massless particles. These are two totally different things. Photons are called massless particles because they have zero rest mass. Virtual particles can be any kind of particle. See "quantum foam."

Hawking radiation is REAL particles escaping from just outside the event horizon while the REAL anti-particle falls in. The particles arise out of the quantum foam, which is composed of virtual particles.

 

the conflating idiocracy you failing to comprehend is E=mc2 or purely 'fission' provides evidence your (the community of physics) belief there-in, is wrong. ie..... mass is just energy (light/photons) at rest; mass is just energy affixed in time.

the difference is the things you represent are based on conformance not science. Kind of like a religious wingnut

a virtual particle in this sense is virtually
non-sense to reality. Kind of like a rabid foaming of the mouth, just a virus

So is a gamma a ray (electromagnetic energy) or a particle? (neutron)

which is virtual non-sense as your post is probably from reading regurgitation versus the physics with any comprehension.

ie.... the eye of irene is closer to a black hole, than anything you will ever think you seeing (in your case reading) of a galaxy's black hole.

 

This has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said. Einstein's famous equation shows that energy can be converted into mass nad vice versa with the speed of light squared being the factor of conversion

Nonsense.

"Virtual" is just a way of talking about it. I know.

Gamma rays are not particles. That's whay they call them rays.

Thanks for your utterly mindless and useless opinion.

Now you're just blithering and blustering.

 

I can not agree. Of course I am human and can make mistakes! Only Jesus Christ had God inside and even he made what we dim witted humans think were mistakes, well a truly introspective and open theist Christian would say that JC made what humans would say were mistakes! God did too, but that is material for another thread eh?

Where? Quote tag usage is needed for these types of claims, however I will say that the terminology is tricky some so called massless particles have mass.

I described why the photon in my example had mass did you miss it? A photon is not truly massless however its commonly called massless i.e.;

Photon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The photon is massless, has no electric charge, and does not decay
spontaneously in empty space. A photon has ...... Further info: What is the mass of
a photon? ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

Or;
Does light have mass?
Aug 5, 1997 ... The definition of the invariant mass of an object is m = sqrt{E2/c4 - p2/c2}. By this
definition a beam of light, is massless like the photons it is ...
www2.corepower.com:8080/~relfaq/light_mass.html

Or
What is the mass of a photon?
Does the photon have mass? ... Photons are traditionally said to be massless. ...
Newton defined the "momentum" p of this particle (also a vector), such that p ...
math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/.../photon_mass.html -

So that is why I said a photon is massless and of course I defined how it could be both said to be massless and have mass, so I do not understand why you have a problem with what I said.

Nevertheless, virtual particles have different ‘values’ than their normal twin. In any case again you should show a quote where I commented about the types of virtual particles. So if there is a next time where you feel I am in error please use quotes? You may be aware that a photon is said to be a massless particle even though it has mass as I indicated and described in detail. I think the error is only in you misunderstanding what I am writing, which can be expected. If I were writing a reply for physicists I would word it different and use correct terminology, however we have a wide range people here and I attempt to use as little sciencease’ as possible so the accuracy of my replies takes a hit.

Ha ha! I said that a particle (real) falling into the black hole changes. SO yes I know it begins as a real particle. I think you again misunderstand me, and before I define hawking radiation to emphasize the virtual nature of it I will also tell you that an antiparticle is a 'real particle' . Ok here is a primer on how virtual particles are related to Hawking radiation;

Definition of Hawking radiation; (Astronomy) "Astronomy the emission of particles by a black hole. Pairs of virtual particles in the intense gravitational field around a black hole may live long enough for one to move outward when the other is pulled into the black hole, making it appear that the black hole is emitting radiation."

Exactly what particles are you speaking of? The so called QF is a highly theoretical concept that suggests that an extremely tiny hypothetical region of space-time exists where numerous particles are formed and destroyed. quantum foam gives rise to quantum particles.

Anyway,

Thanks for your critique however I can not agree that I made factual errors. Perhaps it's the queer way I write, which is because of two reasons; first French is my first language (I speak four, three fluently). French does not lend itself to English conversion well. Second is that I cheated my way through most of my undergraduate college courses. (I received both a BA and BS) However due to the cheating I cheated myself and have difficulty with English grammar as well as several other subjects, calculus and probabilities and stats come to mind! The cheating really harmed me when I was a candidate of my MA. Even now as I plod through advanced non elective courses at ETSU/UT for an eventual PhD, I kick myself for cheating for it comes back to haunt me often! The moral of this last paragraph? Don’t cheat, it only harms yourself!

Lastly I am happy that you are not being malicious in your comments about what you preceive as errors. Now I am off to the market, and I may sneak off to the scope shop and check out the new Dobs.

RevA

 

Quote: "A virtural particle is a so called massless particle..."

This is wrong.

I have no use for addressing anything else you said when you deny you are wrong on the very first thing.

 

I can derive the equation of kinetic energy from bacteria reproducing. It doesn't mean they have any relations or even that kinetic energy required bacteria to exist.

No, it doesn't matter. Cyclical universe cannot exist. What created the space and time that the universe takes place in? Maybe you should respond to more than 1 sentence at a time. I can forgive you if your attention span is incapable, but just say so.

This is answered later in my post. God doesn't have to be described by *science* science is used to understand and God must be impossible to understand one bit.

Classical causality, maybe. Causality, no causality needs to be there. Give one instance where it is not, and you are simply looking at it wrong.

Logic says that something that has never been observed to exist is the basis of the universe? Lol. That's some freakin poor logic there.

He doesnt need one, he isn't confined to the rules of this universe, *which he created*, he's confined to a whole different physics and laws. Which are unknowable. To use science and logic to describe it is futile.

No problem. Causity is easily rejected.

The fundamental truth of science, causality. And once again, which you glossed over in my post. If there are multiverses, god(s) must exist in one of them by sheer probability.

To mock you, I would take your post apart word by word and criticize each choice of the word you use. But my argument would accomplish nothing, much like your phrase by phrase criticism accomplished.

"Shut up", never heard that one before when my argument is perfectly sound. Oh wait, that's what everyone does when I construct a good argument. They tell me to shut up.

 

How dare you disagree with things when you don't even understand them.

I swear. Some people refuse to be taught anything!

 

No it doens't. You are simply ignorant of the relevant work on the subject.

It would be U S E L E S S for me to "give an example" since you are uneducatable, being convinced of your own omniscience

 

You are completley fooling yourself if you think you have made any good arguments.