Quoted on Internet: The goal of theoretical physics is to find a theory that can unite all fundamental forces. In 1970s, the standard model based on quantum field theory has been able to unite electromagnetic force, strong and weak nuclear forces. However, to incorporate the gravitational force into the quantum field theory was very difficult. The string theory, which is dramatically different from quantum field theory, turns out to be quite successful in uniting all fundamental forces. What is string theory? In this theory, all fundamental particles are considered as the vibrational modes (patterns) of fundamental strings. The "particles" are analogous to the "notes" in music. Different vibrational frequencies of a violin string produce different notes. Similarly, different vibrational modes of a fundamental string give rise to different particles. The most important "prediction" of the string theory is that the space must NOT be three dimensional (length, width and height). If the fundamental strings can vibrate only in three dimensional space, no meaningful results can be obtained. To derive the observed properties of all fundamental particles, the fundamental strings must vibrate in a space with 9 or 10 dimensions. How come we do not see extra dimensions? Currently, there are two different models that may explain why we do not see the 6 or 7 extra dimensions: compactification and braneworld. The compactification model assumes that the extra dimensions are simply too small to be observed. This model was proposed first because similar idea has been suggested as early as in 1920s. In the braneworld model proposed by Randall and Sundrum, the reason why we cannot see extra dimensions is because we are confined in a braneworld (with 3 dimensions of space) that is embedded in the bulk world (with 9 or 10 dimensions of space). This model is based on the study of D-branes, a feature arising from the boundary condition on the ends of open strings. According to this model, photons and all other particles (except gravitons) cannot escape from our braneworld. Therefore, we cannot see anything outside our braneworld. Since gravitons may escape from braneworld, the so-called dark energy and dark matter could arise from the leakage of gravitons into the bulk or from the gravitational interaction between our braneworld and other braneworlds. Could string theory unite science with religion? For religious people, the braneworld model should be much more exciting than the compactification model. If the compactification model were true, there would be no place for God. The braneworld model opens the possibility for the existence of other braneworlds or even some beings in the bulk world End Quote Wow, respected Physics gurus throughout the world talking about the existence of god. Say you scared Martin.
ok, so these dudes are saying exactly what i have been saying all along, that the god's existence or non-existence is undetermined. yes, how frightening for me that these physicists agree with me exactly! it is the believers who disagree with this. these physicists are saying one of their possible models has "no place for god". believers cant accept this. they are certain.
This is groundbreaking. String Theory revealed/discovered a curtain, something's behind it, and they're trying to peek behind the curtain to fully grasp reality. And what's possible is a multi-dimensional being who we cannot observe or visualize-a cognizant all-powerful (to us it would be for sure). There may not be anything there, but I think there is. There should be a fully dimensional being in the real, full universe..., just intuition here. Now here's whats truly remarkable. We may be at the verge of proving the existence of a god, or an all-powerful being. It's closer than you may think. Of course, we can never prove that he dosen't exist.
I saw a show on Discovery, I think, dealing with string theory. It is a very interesting concept and has me hooked to say the least.
unless you are theoretical or quantum physicist (not only that, but i think you would have to be of the more prominent ones in the world to be an authority on string theory) , i think your "intuition" is meaningless. as well as your assertion that "It's closer than you may think". i have been keeping up with string theory for a while, and while i dont claim to understand it, i do know that the people who do understand it are barely scratching the surface with it. and one of the two models you describe "opens the possibility for the existence of... even some beings". wow, it "opens the possibility". since i didnt know the possibility was ever closed, that is not much of a development. also it used the term "beings", a plural which is counter to what we have been discussing, the singular creator.
My intuition helps shapes my beliefs, very meaningful to I. It's the first time ever that that proof could ever be dreamed of, so yes, quite groundbreaking to say the least. They are talking about it. How close? But that question is on the table. You have to realize how unfathomable that question was 20 years ago, and how miraculous now. Now here's what I think you are truly missing. If the compaction theory holds with no room for god (that theory is not the prevalent one with leaders in String) that you go back to how it was before. People will say he exist, you just can't understand, that's what all powerful can do. Of course god's existence had been closed with athiest, reality is all we can see and measure and nothing more they said. Now with the more prevalent braneworld model, proving mulit dimensions, maybe being(s) we cannot comprehend/visualize existing, of course this is a giant developent. They are saying there is a whole reality/dimensions that hold many possibilities. And they're scratching the surface, digging, hold you're breath.
This kind of mistake - using I instead of me - is sometimes called "hypercorrection". The miscreant thinks he's being more elegant or more grammatically correct if he avoids me. He doesn't realize that those in the know are pointing at him and laughing and jeering. Don't assume that I is always somehow more correct than me. It ain't.
You're totally off base, and I agree with what you wrote. It was just a symbol as in I'm #1, I (my) belief is what matters. I'm the only one that got it probably, but that's what's important.:yelwink2:
