String theory and Creation

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

I love science, and watch it with interest.

I watched this video and as they explained string theory in basic terms. The vibrating aspect and the thoughts of unlimited levels creation triggered a recollection of this aspect being mentioned in the "Tablet of the Universe" of Abdu’l-Baha.

Thus I wonder if string theory has some merit. The video is followed by and extract from this "Tablet of the Universe".

"....Thus the suns of the praise of the one true God moved resplendent in a vast, infinite space, capable neither of being defined by limits nor contained within the compass of signs and allusions. All praise be to Him Who was its Author and Creator, Who spread it out, and adorned it with countless lamps and never-fading luminaries: 'None knoweth the hosts of thy Lord save Him' (Qur'an, 74:31). He made the circuits of these luminous divine orbs to be their lofty and celestial spheres; and He made the bodies of these spiritual spheres to be subtle and soft, flowing and liquid, undulating and vibrating, in such manner that these refulgent orbs swim in the circumferences of the spheres, and move in their vast space by the aid of their Creator and Maker, their Ordainer and Fashioner.

Divine and all-encompassing Wisdom hath ordained that motion be an inseparable concomitant of existence, whether inherently or accidentally, spiritually or materially. This movement must be governed by some check or rein, some regulator or director, otherwise order will be disrupted and the spheres and bodies will fall from the heavens. For this reason God brought into being a universal attractive force between these bodies to hold sway over them and govern them, a force deriving from the firm ties, the mighty correspondence and affinity that exist between the realities of these limitless worlds. By the operation of this attractive force those holy and resplendent suns, with their luminous worlds, satellites and planets, circling and orbiting in their heavens, at once exerted attraction and were subject to it, induced motion and were themselves moved, began orbiting and set into orbit other bodies, shone forth and caused others to shine. In this manner they became arranged in a perfectly ordered system, each one a handiwork of consummate fashioning and manifest beauty, each one an enduring creation and a conclusive proof. Glory be to Him Who attracted them, laid firm hold on them, imbued them with effulgence, ordered them and set them in motion; and far from His glory be that which any of his creatures can affirm of Him or attribute to Him...."

The speaker does not acknowledge a divine source.

Regards Tony

 

[RJM]

I'm not at all knowledgeable but although string theory is attractive I believe the theories are based in negatively curved anti de-sitter space which has not actually been observed in our universe? So it's still all theoretical.

All measurements of the expanding universe so far indicate that it is flat, like a pizza, and not positively curved like a sphere or negatively curved in a saddle shape. Of course to me it's possible that's all we can perceive of the universe, and so it looks flat to us.

The LHC did not observe the supersymmetric particles predicted to accompany the known particles -- which would have been convincing evidence -- meaning a bigger collider would be needed, and perhaps still not detect them.

So it appears to remain as a clever mathematical theory that cannot be put to practical use at this time, and for which there is still no actual evidence?

However String Theory does seem to make a lot of sense, in tying everything together, imo

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Thus was a response received on a Reddit Post

"...The basic idea behind string theory is pretty simple. In modern physics you have two massive pillars; general relativity, and quantum mechanics. General relativity governs big stuff, like stars, solar systems, galaxies, the whole universe, and quantum mechanics governs the small stuff, like atoms. So usually you would use one or the other, depending on what exactly you are studying. But, ultimately big stuff is made out of little stuff, and there are situations like black holes or the big bang where both would apply at the same time, so these two theories must ultimately be two sides of the same coin. They should be harmonised into one grand unified theory.

If only it was that easy.

The problem, simply put, is that general relativity cannot be combined with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. General relativity is analogue, and quantum mechanics is digital, and the two don't mix. In general relativity, you have a particle. That particle has mass-energy, and that causes the space-time around that particle to curve. The classic example is the bowling ball on a bed sheet pulled taut. But in quantum mechanics, the uncertainty means that the particle does not have a definite location in space. It has a wave function. It has a certain probability of being in a given location, but it's never in any particular one until you measure it. It's location is...fuzzy. General relativity does not like fuzz. You just cannot mathematically integrate the two and have the math make sense general relativity just doesn't quantise like this it cannot accept the uncertainty.

String theory is a possible solution. Instead of assuming particles are points, what if they are strings? Little one dimensional vibrating strings. If you do this, it actually solves the uncertainty problem. It reduces the fuzziness and allows for general relativity and quantum mechanics to be combined, and not get total gibberish results.

The problems with string theory, and there are more than a few, are that it has to do things like assume more than 3 spatial dimensions that we observe. In fact it's up to 10 dimensions, and there is zero experimental evidence for anything beyond the 3 we already know about. But, on paper, you need 10 to get the math to work. This is actually something of a recurring problem with string theory since it posits 10500 possible different universes, how could you ever prove it wrong? Still, string theory is probably still the closest we've came to a unified theory and is probably still the most popular (or at least the most researched) candidate....."

A couple of more extracts from the 'Tablet of the Universe' also seem to address some of the above stated issues with string theory.

… earthly and heavenly, material and spiritual, accidental and essential, particular and universal, structure and foundation, appearance and reality and the essence of all things, both inward and outward—all of these are connected one with another and are interrelated in such a manner that you will find that drops are patterned after seas, and that atoms are structured after suns in proportion to their capacities and potentialities.........
....Know thou that the expressions of the creative hand of God throughout His limitless worlds are themselves limitless. Limitations are a characteristic of the finite, and restriction is a quality of existent things, not of the reality of existence. – "Abdu’l-Baha, Tablet of the Universe, provisional translation".

Regards Tony

 

[RJM]

atoms are structured after suns in proportion to their capacities and potentialities.........

Not sure of these sorts of statements. Suns are fusion reactors, fusing atoms of hydrogen to helium, and then going on to fuse heavier elements. Suns and atoms are not at all similar really?

He made the bodies of these spiritual spheres to be subtle and soft, flowing and liquid, undulating and vibrating,

Not sure of this. Beyond the solar system planets, visible as stars in the night sky, all the other stars are suns within our milky way galaxy, or more distant galaxies, all containing other bodies. I accept that the essential energy that constitutes the quarks and electrons and so on that make up these bodies is undulating and vibrating.

 

[RJM]

Sorry @Tony Bristow-Stagg
No offence intended.

Claiming passages in religious texts that supposedly foretell 21st Century science always seems to become a slippery slope, imo?

 

[Bloodshot]

Sorry @Tony Bristow-Stagg
No offence intended.

Claiming passages in religious texts that supposedly foretell 21st Century science always seems to become a slippery slope, imo?

"For a Theory of Everything, everything is relevant."

I think there's significant value in examining old wisdom for inspiration for new science, but there is a danger of confirmation bias and over ascribing. Speaking very much from experience

But when you look at shared primitives there's quite a lot of overlap, across many religions and many scientific theories.

I'm fairly convinced that people throughout history have had insights converging on the same fundamentals, but each has expressed them using the vocabulary available to them at the time.

Thus we see Vedic texts talk about particles and fields in terms of cows and herds, for example.
These days we use the language of mathematics to describe the same phenomena.

 

[Bloodshot]

I'm not at all knowledgeable but although string theory is attractive I believe the theories are based in negatively curved anti de-sitter space which has not actually been observed in our universe? So it's still all theoretical.

I think like with most theories there are different denominations now. Some with fixed fundamental dimensions, some with them emergent, some based on symmetry groups like e8 (a 57 dimensional object).

I suspect they're overcomplicating things...

 

[RJM]

we see Vedic texts talk about particles and fields in terms of cows and herds, for example.

Is it possible for you to post or link the passages? Context would matter

 

[Bloodshot]

Is it possible for you to post or link the passages? Context would matter

So sorry, I can't find the exact passages now, I came across them last year when I was in sponge mode

It's probably not the best example anyway - there's far more overlap between:

Cosmogenesis models - a single apparently flawless source decoheres into the mechanisms of the cosmos and its inhabitants
The source being self referential - reacting to its own changes.

Broad structure - particles and forces, jewels and threads, entities communicating via tuned vibration (light, sound).

Order vs Chaos - Dragons slain by lightning wielders releasing water, straight lines defeating tangles and facilitating flow, cosmological phase shifts.

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Sorry @Tony Bristow-Stagg
No offence intended.

Claiming passages in religious texts that supposedly foretell 21st Century science always seems to become a slippery slope, imo?

The way I consider it RJM is that the "Word" as given of God, is spiritual and is the cause of creation. The Tablet does explain this.

An important statement in the "Tablet of the Universe" that proceeds the quote, is this,

"..These are spiritual truths relating to the spiritual world. In like manner, from these spiritual realities infer truths about the material world. For physical things are signs and imprints of spiritual things; every lower thing is an image and counterpart of a higher thing.."

Then goes on to say

"...Nay, earthly and heavenly, material and spiritual, accidental and essential, particular and universal, structure and foundation, appearance and reality and the essence of all things, both inward and outward -- all of these are connected one with another and are interrelated in such a manner that you will find that drops are patterned after seas, and that atoms are structured after suns in proportion to their capacities and potentialities.
What is that bold saying? (We must also be cautious as this is a Provisional Translation)

Maybe another past quote, well before science found it possible, may give hint to what the bold offers. Baha'u'llah quoted this from a past "Persian mystic poem".

"Split the atom's heart, and lo! Within it thou wilt find a sun".

Looking spiritually at that, if we split our heart of worldly desire with the knowledge of the Almighty God, then our capacity and potentiality also takes on the light cast by Christ, which is the Light of God

In proportion to capacity and potential then has meaning both materially and Spiritually.

Split an atom and the blinding light is but a flash of a sun, a moment in time

Split our heart, we are but a flash in time.

Fuse many atoms and get a sun
Fuse many hearts and get the light of God.

This is what I try to look for, knowing the purpose of the Word of God is to bring us to the knowledge of our spiritual essence.

If every soul on this planet were to split their heart with the light of God, and put fire into their veins, the potential of humanity would be unlimited.

I see what I said above in a prayer call the "Fire Tablet", which would be another good discussion. The fire Tablet reminds me of the story of Job

Regards Tony

 

[RJM]

These are spiritual truths relating to the spiritual world. In like manner, from these spiritual realities infer truths about the material world. For physical things are signs and imprints of spiritual things; every lower thing is an image and counterpart of a higher thing

I agree. Plato's cave. Paul's through a glass darkly.

"Split the atom's heart, and lo! Within it thou wilt find a sun".

True that

Looking spiritually at that, if we split our heart of worldly desire with the knowledge of the Almighty God, then our capacity and potentiality also takes on the light cast by Christ, which is the Light of God

I believe this

If every soul on this planet were to split their heart with the light of God, and put fire into their veins, the potential of humanity would be unlimited.

I think the divine comes to man, at man's invitation, and not always in the way that man expects. I think it sometimes happens when a person has lost everything in this world. I don't think a human being can achieve enlightenment. I believe a person can become open to God, and then its up to God what happens?

I don't think it's likely every soul on this planet will ever be open to the spirit. I think it's likely always to be a few 'seekers' who have seen through the purely material values enough to actually look for something more?

Sometimes it can be a very traumatic experience? Or the result of one?

 

[Bloodshot]

Worth noting, I think, that "spirit" and "spiritual world" are ambiguous and open to interpretation.

Some ancient writers used them to mean immaterial, simply "not made of matter". More or less equivalent to modern fields and energies.

Others used them to refer to entities, the supernatural, gods etc.

Ascription of agency and sovereignty to "the spiritual world" therefore should not be assumed to be implied.

 

[iBrian]

My perception is that string theory has effectively been dropped by the mainstream as a dead end idea, and although there are still inevitably a few researchers still exploring it, most have moved onto dark matter and dark energy. Because that's another theoretical subject where researchers can have a lot of fun with maths without having to resort to actual physical observations to justify their work.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Thus I wonder if string theory has some merit.

I'm not at all knowledgeable but although string theory is attractive I believe the theories are based in negatively curved anti de-sitter space which has not actually been observed in our universe? So it's still all theoretical.

All measurements of the expanding universe so far indicate that it is flat, like a pizza, and not positively curved like a sphere or negatively curved in a saddle shape. Of course to me it's possible that's all we can perceive of the universe, and so it looks flat to us.

The LHC did not observe the supersymmetric particles predicted to accompany the known particles -- which would have been convincing evidence -- meaning a bigger collider would be needed, and perhaps still not detect them.

So it appears to remain as a clever mathematical theory that cannot be put to practical use at this time, and for which there is still no actual evidence?

However String Theory does seem to make a lot of sense, in tying everything together, imo

String theory is a possible solution.

My perception is that string theory has effectively been dropped by the mainstream as a dead end idea, and although there are still inevitably a few researchers still exploring it, most have moved onto dark matter and dark energy. Because that's another theoretical subject where researchers can have a lot of fun with maths without having to resort to actual physical observations to justify their work.

I don't know very much about string theory, other than being intrigued by the idea of different dimensions etc.
Coincidentally friends of mine were talking about this just last night. They were saying it was dunzo.
I looked up string theory and it instantly autofilled "string theory is dead" There are lots of videos talking about it.
My understanding is that they can do calculations but have no way to test it (echoing what others have already said on this thread)

 

[RJM]

I looked up string theory and it instantly autofilled "string theory is dead"

A test for string theory was for the large hadron collider to detect the heavy super symmetric particles that string theory predicts would accompany the known particles. It did not detect them -- which means that if they exist they are heavier than the LHC could test for, and it would need a larger collider to look for them, and perhaps still not find them.

Unlike relativity and quantum theories, string theory also seems to have no practical use as yet. The expense of trying to find evidence makes it unlikely research will continue. IMO