Cosmology Intelligent Design

String theory as both “dream” and “nightmare”

Spread the love

Ethan Siegel has a genius for encapsulating what is wrong in science today:

String theory is perhaps the most controversial big idea in all of science today. On the one hand, it’s a mathematically compelling framework that offers the potential to unify the Standard Model with General Relativity, providing a quantum description of gravity and providing deep insights into how we conceive of the entire Universe. On the other hand, its predictions are all over the map, untestable in practice, and require an enormous set of assumptions that are unsupported by an iota of scientific evidence.

Ethan Siegel, “Why String Theory Is Both A Dream And A Nightmare” at Forbes

This is the kind of thing that Sabine Hossenfelder, author of Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray, has been complaining about. What, apart from the fancy equipment and number-crunching, makes it science?

He concludes,

So long as we don’t have evidence that demonstrates string theory must be wrong, people will continue to pursue it. But disproving it would require something like demonstrating that no superparticles exist all the way up to the Planck scale, something far beyond the reach of experimental physics today.

Ethan Siegel, “Why String Theory Is Both A Dream And A Nightmare” at Forbes

Wait. We don’t have evidence that leprechauns don’t exist either. Does that make them believable?

See also: Post-modern physics: String theory gets over the need for evidence

One Reply to “String theory as both “dream” and “nightmare”

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    I like Siegel’s title for his article, “Why String Theory Is Both A Dream And A Nightmare”.

    Siegal’s title reminds me of Penrose’s critique of M-Theory, which is the red-headed step child of string theory.

    ‘What is referred to as M-theory isn’t even a theory. It’s a collection of ideas, hopes, aspirations. It’s not even a theory and I think the book is a bit misleading in that respect. It gives you the impression that here is this new theory which is going to explain everything. It is nothing of the sort. It is not even a theory and certainly has no observational (evidence),,, I think the book suffers rather more strongly than many (other books). It’s not a uncommon thing in popular descriptions of science to latch onto some idea, particularly things to do with string theory, which have absolutely no support from observations.,,, They are very far from any kind of observational (testability). Yes, they (the ideas of M-theory) are hardly science.”
    – Roger Penrose – former close colleague of Stephen Hawking – in critique of Hawking’s new book ‘The Grand Design’ the exact quote is in the following video clip:
    Roger Penrose Debunks Stephen Hawking’s New Book ‘The Grand Design’ – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg_95wZZFr4

    of note: In string theory, spacetime is ten-dimensional (nine spatial dimensions, and one time dimension), while in M-theory it is eleven-dimensional (ten spatial dimensions, and one time dimension).
    – per wikipedia

    Basically, string theory and m-theory are mathematical fantasies, born out of the unrestrained imaginations of mathematicians and theoretical physicists. Mathematical fantasies that are found to have no correspondence to the reality we live in. As Siegal noted in his article,

    Why String Theory Is Both A Dream And A Nightmare – Ethan Siegel – Feb 26, 2020
    Excerpt: when you look at the explicit predictions that have come out for the masses of the mesons that have been already discovered, by using lattice techniques, they differ from observations by amounts that would be a dealbreaker for any other theory.,,,
    However, every turn where we have looked for an observable that might be connected to string theory, in the sense that it would go beyond the Standard Model, we’ve come up empty. The cosmological constant is the wrong sign. Supersymmetric particles are nowhere to be found. Extra dimensions or a non-infinite Brans-Dicke parameter have no evidence to support them. And the fundamental constants, as well as the masses of the particles that exist in our Universe, have not been successfully predicted.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/02/26/why-string-theory-is-both-a-dream-and-a-nightmare/

    The fact that string theory itself turns out to be, basically, ‘illusory’, i,e, “Both A Dream And A Nightmare” that has no correspondence to reality, should not be all that surprising.

    Assuming naturalism, instead of the Mind of God, as the primary substratum upon which all reality rests, in final analysis, renders all of reality illusory.

    Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must hold beauty itself to be illusory.
    Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
    Darwinian Materialism and/or Methodological Naturalism vs. Reality – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaksmYceRXM

    Thus, although the Atheistic Naturalist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Atheistic Naturalists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.

    It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic naturalism has turned out to be.

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

    Moreover, due to advances in science, particularly advances in quantum mechanics, the Christian Theist does not have to rely solely on the catastrophic epistemological failure that is inherent in assuming methodological naturalism, but the Christian Theist can now also appeal to advances in Quantum Mechanics itself to prove that the Mind of God must be the primary substratum upon which all reality rests.

    Here are eight intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness must precede material reality

    Double Slit experiment,
    Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries,
    Recent confirmation of the Wigner’s friend thought experiment,
    Wheeler’s Delayed Choice experiment,
    Leggett’s Inequalities,
    Quantum Zeno effect,
    Quantum Information theory, particularly the recent confirmation of the Maxwell demon thought experiment.
    The recent closing of the Free Will loophole.

    Putting all the lines of evidence from quantum mechanics together, the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this:

    1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality (Jerry Coyne). or is an intrinsic property of material reality, (panpsychism, Philip Goff)
    2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality (Jerry Coyne). or is an intrinsic property of material reality, (panpsychism, Philip Goff), then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
    3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
    4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.

    Perhaps the most direct falsification of the naturalist’s belief that consciousness is derivative from material reality, rather than material reality being derivative from consciousness, i.e. derivative from the Mind of God, is the falsification of ‘realism’ itself, which is the belief that a material reality can exist independently of our conscious observation of it.

    The two main experiments that have falsified ‘realism’ are Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment and Leggett’s inequality:

    New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It – June 3, 2015 (Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment accomplished with atoms)
    Excerpt: Some particles, such as photons or electrons, can behave both as particles and as waves. Here comes a question of what exactly makes a photon or an electron act either as a particle or a wave. This is what Wheeler’s experiment asks: at what point does an object ‘decide’?
    The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts.
    “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,,
    “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said.
    Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer.
    http://themindunleashed.org/20.....at-it.html

    Quantum physics says goodbye to reality – Apr 20, 2007
    Excerpt: Many realizations of the thought experiment have indeed verified the violation of Bell’s inequality. These have ruled out all hidden-variables theories based on joint assumptions of realism, meaning that reality exists when we are not observing it; and locality, meaning that separated events cannot influence one another instantaneously. But a violation of Bell’s inequality does not tell specifically which assumption – realism, locality or both – is discordant with quantum mechanics.
    Markus Aspelmeyer, Anton Zeilinger and colleagues from the University of Vienna, however, have now shown that realism is more of a problem than locality in the quantum world. They devised an experiment that violates a different inequality proposed by physicist Anthony Leggett in 2003 that relies only on realism, and relaxes the reliance on locality. To do this, rather than taking measurements along just one plane of polarization, the Austrian team took measurements in additional, perpendicular planes to check for elliptical polarization.
    They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. “Our study shows that ‘just’ giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics,” Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. “You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism.”
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640

    And although the falsification of ‘realism’ itself is certainly very powerful experimental proof that the atheist’s assumption of methodological naturalism is false, the quantum zeno effect coupled with advances in quantum information theory add yet another lethal blow to the atheist’s metaphysial assumption of methodological naturalism.

    December 2019 – Although each of those (eight) experiments are very interesting in their own right as to proving that the Mind of God must precede material reality, my favorite evidences out of that group, for proving that the Mind of God must be behind the creation of the universe itself, is the Quantum Zeno effect and Quantum Information theory. This is because the Quantum Zeno effect and Quantum Information theory deal directly with entropy. And, entropy is, by a VERY wide margin, the most finely tuned of the initial conditions of the Big Bang. Finely tuned to an almost incomprehensible degree of precision, 1 part in 10 to the 10 to the 123rd power. As Roger Penrose himself stated that, “This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123.”
    https://uncommondescent.com/big-bang/sabine-hossenfelder-physicists-theories-of-how-the-universe-began-arent-any-better-than-traditional-tales-of-creation/#comment-690210

    Verse:

    Colossians 1:17
    He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Leave a Reply