Is String Theory Supernatural?

Hi Straggler,

I believe it would be a distiction without a difference in that case.

hi Straggler

Straggler writes: It's the difference between magic and the physical laws in another universe.

Have you ever watched a show called 'Fringe' I enjoyed watching it and am in the process of watching the series from the beginning.

The show is basically about a small group of people who work for a faction of the Homeland Defense Dept. They investigate the wierd, unexplained, supernatural stuff that happens.
The show always begins with some inexplicable horrific experience like a body solidifying and exploding, or a large parasitic worm crawling out of a group of human Chinese incubators or people popping back and forth between alternate universes..... anyway the Fringe team usually solves the mystery by the end of the hour.
It always involves some naturalist scientific explanation.

Is string theory/M-theory supernatural?
String theory is a theory that makes some untestable assumptions that only work if there are 11 dimentions.

The theory can never be tested/observed, since the strings are Plankes length and unobservable. But that does not mean it is un provable.

Are these theories supernatural? imo No.

There is one theory that the reason gravity is such a weak force is because it is leaking into our universe from another universe. So we possibly are already influenced by a extra dimentional phenomenon. Is it supernatural. I do not think so.
Some theist believe that God (if he exist) is the one responsible for the super intelligent extradimentional beings that possibly created our universe/our existance.

Now that would be supernatural.

Straggler writes: Nor can quarks be directly observed. So what?

Well subatomic particles like quarks are observable even if indirectly.
Technically everything that we see is being observed indirectly.

In order to observe something you must have something to bounce off the object. ie: photons, electrons, fingers on brail.

My point about strings is that they are at the limit of how small something can be. They can never be observed. Ever. So any prediction based on them will always be theorectical and speculative. I am not saying that is a problem, we managed to work in the probablistic anomalies of QM into our science with accurate and predictable confidence.

Straggler writes: Due to colour confinement quarks cannot exist in isolation. So we can only observe the hadrons (e.g. the neutron) they collectively form.

And that bit means they are observed indirectly que no?

Straggler writes: So how do we detect the existence of black holes?

Indirectly. I believe by observing the shit thats happening around them.

Straggler writes: We can’t observe the Big Bang either. And as I have pointed out above – Nor can you observe a quark. What we can do is observe the predicted effects of their existence.

Cue the Eagles music:
Well Straggler when your traveling down a dark desert highway,
cool wind in your hair......and you see up ahead in the distance..
the lights from other cars on the same highway disappear and reappear you can conclude there is a hill up ahead without actually seeing the hill. Yes the effects of the hills existence. But we could go there and walk up that hill and see it does infact exist. I mean we know how light behaves, we know how gravity behaves, we can make observations that confirm with confidence the existance of what may be behind those observations.
CMB for the big bang, high energy collisions of hadrons for quarks, and light for black holes and hills.
Those are things that can be verified by experiment.

Straggler writes: It's not about size. It's all about verifiable predictions.

Of which cannot be made at Planke scales as far as I know.

But I do agree Mr. Straggler strings theory is not supernatural.
God making strings, now that's supernatural.

Hello Straggler,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

Here is a article you might find interesting from May last year.
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=4634

Edited by 1.61803, : edit link

Edited by 1.61803, : reworded.

Hi AZPaul3,

Just as wrong but refreshing none the less.

To do otherwise would be to ignore scientific evidence and embrace ignorance.

I know a good deal of people who believe in God, attend Christian Churches and have occupations in the field of medicine as physicians.

How they square their faith with science baffles me but they somehow manage to do it.

GDR writes: That does not mean that my theology in anyway limits what science has to tell me.

It depends on what it is. If miracles are facts then would not science attempt to explain them?

If science show them to be in violation of the laws of physics and impossible. Then one must either believe what science says is true or what ones beliefs say are true.

You can not have it both ways.

You must accept the belief in miracles based on faith alone and a concious individual choice to accept miracles without any bases in fact. Because once you begin to look for facts; they are cold hard things that poke holes in faith. At least that has been my experiance. I can not for the life of me will myself to believe something that is dimetrically opposed to the knowlege of the world as we know it. My faith and belief in miracles has slowly evaporated. I salute your beliefs and your ability to conjoin them with scientific knowlege.