String Theory Co-Founder: Sub-Atomic Particles Are Evidence the Universe Was Created

CNS ^ | June 17, 2016 | Barbara Hollingsworth

[xzins]

Dr. Michio Kaku, a theoretical physicist at the City College of New York (CUNY) and co-founder of String Field Theory, says theoretical particles known as “primitive semi-radius tachyons” are physical evidence that the universe was created by a higher intelligence.

After analyzing the behavior of these sub-atomic particles - which can move faster than the speed of light and have the ability to “unstick” space and matter – using technology created in 2005, Kaku concluded that the universe is a “Matrix” governed by laws and principles that could only have been designed by an intelligent being.

“I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence. Believe me, everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore,” Kaku said, according to an article published in the Geophilosophical Association of Anthropological and Cultural Studies.

“To me it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.”

“The final solution resolution could be that God is a mathematician,” Kaku, author of The Future of the Mind: The Scientific Quest to Understand, Enhance, and Empower the Mind, said in a 2013 Big Think video posted on YouTube.

“The mind of God, we believe, is cosmic music, the music of strings resonating through 11-dimensional hyperspace.”

String Theory “revolutionized” mathematics and physics by demonstrating a “super symmetry” in the universe. Kaku said it also explains gaps in the Big Bang theory.

“First of all, the Big Bang wasn’t very big. Second of all, there was no bang. Third, Big Bang Theory doesn’t tell you what banged, when it banged, how it banged. It just said it did bang. So the Big Bang theory in some sense is a total misnomer,” the well-known physicist said in 2015.

“We need a theory that goes before the Big Bang, and that’s String Theory. String Theory says that perhaps two universes collided to create our universe, or maybe our universe is butted from another universe leaving an umbilical cord….

“Some people believe that maybe, just maybe, we have detected evidence of that umbilical cord.”

[Red Badger]

Good thing you clarified that..............I was beginning to wonder................B^)

[Mr. Lucky]

Yeah, well who’s he compared to Bill Nye, the Science Guy?

[Boogieman]

“I know plenty of mathematicians who see it the other way around!”

It’s understandable that a mathematician might be tempted to think that way, but it’s inexcusable for a scientist, and that is exactly what happened with many of the string theorists.

[onedoug]

Latest LHC results have pretty much ruled out String Theory.... They have? When did this happen?

[sagar]

“They have? When did this happen?”

*disclaimer* - Not a scientist, just reading the papers/summary.

They have found absolutely no evidence for the String theory. The String theory, a grand idea to the theory of ‘everything’, has gone several iterations. Its latest best hope is supersymmetry. The expectation was that LHC’s first run would have found experimental evidence for it... it did not. It basically ruled out based on the mass of Higgs Boson being 125 GeV. There is still some lingering hope for a not-so-simple-elegant-kind-of supersymmetry, as there is hope for anything, but the experimental science has gone past it. You have to realize that whatever we find/can find right now is basically explaining less than 10% of the universe. The standard model of particle physics does not even include gravity, among other things.

This is pretty exciting... the next LHC results will be in late summer/early fall... late last year they appear to have found a potentially new particle 6 times the higgs boson. They are currently running trillions of collisions to see if that was just a statistical fluke.

[eddie willers]

Throughout history, it is the non-accepted hacks who pioneered new theories that were eventually accepted.

Science advances one funeral at a time.
~Max Planck

[betty boop]

One of the reasons we still have a lot to learn about the Universe is that the human mind is not capable of imagining Nothing.

Does this mean that you believe once the human mind can grasp what "nothing" is, then and only then will we have the prospect of grasping what the Universe is???

Let me just ask you a very unscientific, but common sense question. Do you personally have any experience of a "something" being produced by a "nothing?" Alternatively put, that something can be caused by Nothing?

Think about that proposition for just a minute, and see if it really makes any sense to you.

The quantum universe unobserved is evidently in a condition of ataxia, formlessness. But because it is formless, this does not denote nothingness. Formlessness is still a something.

It is logically impossible to say that something can ever be the product, or result, of Nothing. Nothing does nothing, causes nothing. It is No-thing.

The human mind can imagine within the realm of possibilities. I believe there is a one-to-one correspondence between the world of Reality and its phenomena, and the cognizing mind. If the human mind cannot cognize something, it may be because it has no corresponding analogue in the natural world.

If we say that everything is finally caused by Nothing, and Nothing is no-thing, then in what way is this a testable, let alone provable statement? And if this were a valid statement, what do you think the Universe would look like? Nothing is truly nothing -- it lacks any principle at all. How then can it produce highly principled physical laws? How does it produce an orderly Universe, which is what human beings actually experience?

[xzins]

For some reason “no money” is easy to imagine. :>)

Imagine you have no money, nada, zilch, your pockets are empty.

Now replace ‘money’ with any ‘thing’ else.

Then replace it with no anything at all.

[TXnMA]

Scientists are always more than happy to correct their statements to reflect the best available current data.

Dogmatists -- well, let's just say that's where the concept of "SETTLED" originated...

~~~~~~~~~

Intelligent discourse always welcomed... </SARCASM>

[onedoug]

I’m betting ultimately on the beauty of the mathematics of M-Theory, and their energy term reductions convergent to relativity. What are the odds?

[eddie willers]

As science keeps changing and rolling about, we seem to be getting back to the idea of The Aether. Last I checked in on physics and cosmology there's lots of talk about "virtual" particles, spooky action at a distance, dark matter, dark energy...all space filled with something. No 'nothing', or 'no thing' there...it is all full.

Before God, (or the ID creator, or the big bang or whatever) that came before our "start" of time is the only time there could be nothing. Nothing at all.

And, yes, I do not think the human mind can truly conceive that. (but it's fun trying)

[UCANSEE2]

Wow. Thanks for the response, I think.

Does this mean that you believe once the human mind can grasp what "nothing" is, then and only then will we have the prospect of grasping what the Universe is???

Well, that is what the Zen Masters claim.

Let me just ask you a very unscientific, but common sense question. Do you personally have any experience of a "something" being produced by a "nothing?"

Let me give you a very unscientific answer. Yes. For example, our 'money' and the Federal Reserve. They create something out of nothing all the time.

Alternatively put, that something can be caused by Nothing?

Alternatively answered, Hillary and Obama repeatedly create something out of nothing.

Think about that proposition for just a minute, and see if it really makes any sense to you.

Can't, I'm busy thinking about nothing.

The quantum universe unobserved is evidently in a condition of ataxia, formlessness. But because it is formless, this does not denote nothingness. Formlessness is still a something.

Only if you postulate and accept it's existence first, before you define it as formless. The quantum theory may be correct, or it may not. The whole Planck floor may be just the HUM of GOD. I guess it all depends on your definition of formlessness.

It is logically impossible to say that something can ever be the product, or result, of Nothing. Nothing does nothing, causes nothing. It is No-thing.

I mow my lawn regularly. If I do nothing, the lawn grows. Doing nothing cause things like an abundance of weeds, and tickets from the city.

The human mind can imagine within the realm of possibilities.

The human mind can imagine beyond the realm of possibilities. That is why things are possible today that were not possible 100 years ago. We even imagine things that are impossible. Things that are not real.

I believe there is a one-to-one correspondence between the world of Reality and its phenomena, and the cognizing mind. If the human mind cannot cognize something, it may be because it has no corresponding analogue in the natural world.

You mean like UFO's ?

If we say that everything is finally caused by Nothing, and Nothing is no-thing, then in what way is this a testable, let alone provable statement? And if this were a valid statement, what do you think the Universe would look like?

Just like it does now.

Nothing is truly nothing -- it lacks any principle at all. How then can it produce highly principled physical laws? How does it produce an orderly Universe, which is what human beings actually experience?

Yet, that is the BIG BANG THEORY. And orderly Universe was created out of NOTHING. Same theory in the Bible. Only difference between the Biblical and Scientific Theories is that in the Biblical theory, GOD existed before the Big Bang.

[UCANSEE2]

For some reason “no money” is easy to imagine.

Only because "money" exists. If it did not, no one could imagine "no money".

[xzins]

It is an example and you can imagine it.

[TXnMA]

"Only difference between the Biblical and Scientific Theories is that in the Biblical theory, GOD existed before the Big Bang. "

Interesting, and well written! And -- with the "money quote" as the climax!

~~~~~~~

Actually, the Biblical version is not a theory, per se. It is a set of ordered, sequential statements -- claimed to be fact.

Furthermore, those claims (and the order in which they are made) can be examined against the best scientific theories and measurements mankind has devised to date.

As a physical scientist, I consider those "bald-faced" claims in Genesis I to be "The most outrageous claims ever made"

As a believer in Divine Creation, I see them as outrageous, indeed -- but, TRUE!

~~~~~~~

Circa 2012, I assigned myself the "trivial" '-) task of comparing -- on a timeline, graphically -- those claims -- and the order and sequence in which they were made -- against the current scientific thinking on the origin and development of our universe.

My working title for that effort is

The Most Outrageous Claims Ever Made
...a scientist looks at the first four verses of Genesis...

To "whet your appetite", here is one frame from that graphic presentation:

It uses fireworks as an illustration of Kaku's point in this posted article: there is ANisotropy (a differentiation, a pattern, a design) imposed upon this universe. Without that ANisotropy, neither stars, nor galaxies -- nor we -- could exist!

Many of you will see fireworks displays this Fourth of July. They usually start with an ISOtropic "big bang", which flashes and booms -- and dissipates into nothing.

Later, the crowd will "OOOH!" over beautiful, multicolored, ANisotropic fireworks masterpieces like the second graphic. Those spectacular works are carefully designed and constructed: the one depicted has hundreds of identical pellets with a Cobalt (blue) core, a magnesium powder (white) layer, and an outer shell (which burns first) containing Strontium (red) salts.

Our universe is far, far more complex, intricate, and amazingly-designed than any firework!

~~~~~~~~~~

Without ANisotropy in our univrese, we wouldn't exist.
Without ISOtropy, we couldn't survive...
TXnMA, ca 2010...

[TXnMA]

" Without ANisotropy in our universe, we wouldn't exist. "

...OCD/AR -- in action... '-)

[UCANSEE2]

So.... in the condensed version of your Isotropic/Anisotropic story..... It blowed up real good.

: )

[UCANSEE2]

ANisotropy (a differentiation, a pattern, a design) imposed upon this universe.

A pattern, a design imposed upon the Planck Floor that creates all 'form'.

[UCANSEE2]

It is an example and you can imagine it.

Dang it.

I was trying to imagine nothing, again, and now my mind is full of an empty pocket.

[UCANSEE2]

By the way
Forgot to say
Of your well written post
I would like to boast.