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.”

[UCANSEE2]

Science advances one funeral at a time.

While grants tend to take it in the other direction.

[UCANSEE2]

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

I don't. It's just that they are so ambiguous that they allow as many different interpretations are there are people reading them. (which may have been done on purpose. It is supposed to be about faith).

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

I see no difference between The Big Bang Theory and "God created the heavens and the Earth", with the exception that I mentioned about God existing before the creation.

[TXnMA]

Thank’ee kindly!

[jpsb]

A faster then light particle? Hmmmm

[jpsb]

Latest LHC results have pretty much ruled out String Theory

Really? Details, tia.

[jpsb]

my favorite description of the Big Bang. “First there was nothing and then it exploded”. LOL

[jjotto]

It’s been suspected for years that string theory is a dead end. That was even a theme on The Big Bang Theory tv show, where Sheldon was forced to change his research field.

Here’s an old description of the problem:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2006/oct/08/research.highereducation

[TXnMA]

"I see no difference between The Big Bang Theory and "God created the heavens and the Earth", with the exception that I mentioned about God existing before the creation."

~~~~~~~~~~~

That, of course, is the BIG difference. Where we scientists say that "Nothing" could exist (or even be calculated) prior to t-0, GOD says, "I AM".

And the original "Big Bang" theory was basically ISOtropic. Just in recent years, are we adding in elements like

• Structure in the CMB

• Polarization patterns preceding the CMB & imposing structure on it

• Gravity waves

• Kaku's "tachyonic matrix", etc...

The above are not in conflict with Scripture's claims that not only was GOD present in the beginning but that He created [ex nihilo -- "from nothing"] everything -- and imposed His design on the burgeoning Universe...!

The standard Big Bang Theory addresses none of the above. But, accounts recorded by nomadic herders over 4,000 years ago -- do. And -- they got the sequence and order right...

Either they had astounding, prescient imaginations -- or they were told and/or shown what happened -- by the One Who claimed to have done it all...

[jpsb]

Interesting thanks for the link.

[xzins]

Which means you understand nothing

[Jamestown1630]

I guess they have to start somewhere ;-)

-JT

[ChessExpert]

One author (can’t remember his name) examined the implications of time dilation. According to relativity theory, time can proceed differently for different observers. We, on earth now, may have experienced time very differently than someone elsewhere in the universe.

The author asks what would time (and events) look like as seen from the moment (location?) of creation. He concludes that it matches the biblical narrative pretty well.

[TXnMA]

"One author (can’t remember his name) ...[snip]... asks what would time (and events) look like as seen from the moment (location?) of creation. He concludes that it matches the biblical narrative pretty well."

~~~~~~~~~~~

Your "author" sounds like Gerald Schroeder ("Genesis and the Big Bang")...

We agree; relativity makes it possible for me to be comfortable with both the Biblical account of creation -- and, with our measured/estimated age of the universe of 13.7 +/- billion years. In fact, that is how I illustrated the concept in this frame from my graphical presentation/movie-in-progress,

"GENESIS I: The Most Outrageous Claims Ever Made
...a scientist looks at the first four verses..."

I note that I FTP'd that image into my domain's webspace on 31-Aug-2013 -- and I'm still working on the presentation... '-)

Of course, it is nigh-unto impossible for us to define the Creator's reference frame. (I assume that, at minimum, He occupies another dimension -- and, is not [as we are] constrained by "C" , the speed of light...)

[UCANSEE2]

Which means you understand nothing

Yeah. That's what I hear every time I try to tell a Democrat about Hillary being a crooked liar.

[xzins]

That needs to be read in the context of our conversation and discussion here.

I just looked at again, and it could be taken as a slam via double entendre. None was meant.

I meant it as “Which means you understand “the concept of nothing”. If you took it otherwise, it is entirely my fault due to my poor writing and failure to review and think about what I’d written.

[betty boop]

....all space [is] filled with something. No 'nothing', or 'no thing' there...it is all full.

Exactly, eddie willers. This recalls the discredited aether theory of the nineteenth century.

Funny thing is, scientific discoveries over the past 75 years or so actually make a modified aether theory seem reasonable, though it's going by a different name now -- the plenum. [Thanks to David Bohm, in Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980].

It is being suggested here, then, that what we perceive through the senses as empty space is actually the plenum, which is the ground of the existence of everything, including ourselves. The things that appear to our senses are derivative forms and their true meaning can be seen only when we consider the plenum, in which they are generated and sustained, and into which they must ultimately vanish.

This plenum is, however, no longer to be conceived through the idea of a simple medium, such as an ether, which would be regarded as existing and moving only in three-dimensional space. Rather, one is to begin with the holomovement, in which there is an immense 'sea' of energy.... This sea is to be understood in terms of a multidimensional implicate order ... while the entire universe of matter as we generally observe it is to be treated as a comparatively small pattern of excitation. This excitation pattern is relatively autonomous and gives rise to approximately recurrent, stable and separable projections into a three-dimensional explicate order of manifestation, which is more or less equivalent to that of space as we commonly experience it....

Some thoughts. We humans really have no idea how many dimensions there are. We commonly experience only three of space and one of time -- four dimensions in total. Yet lately, mathematical physicists have begun to suspect there may well be more than four dimensions.

Indeed, this is what string theory is attempting to work out. Depending on which version of string theory you consult, the total number of dimensions is thought to be 11, or even 26.

The problem is, most of these newly posited dimensions are spatial dimensions, not temporal ones; and they are said to be "compacted" or curled back onto themselves at a size less than Planck length. This means these posited dimensions are not ever observable in principle.

That is to say Planck length is the smallest unit of size that can be cognized by the human mind. Analogously, we can never imaginatively get back to t = 0; for Planck time prohibits this. Planck time is the smallest temporal unit cognizable by the human mind. It is the time required for light to travel, in a vacuum, a distance of one Planck length (1.62 x 10^-33 centimeters). So for us, the "beginning" is not t = 0; it is t = 5.39 x 10^-44 seconds. It has been said that all of physics breaks down entirely in this Planck Era.

So, not only can we NOT find out what if anything existed prior to the Big Bang, we can't even get back to the beginning of time itself (t = 0).

So, even if string theory is "correct," i.e., all those less-than-Planck-length spatial dimensions are really there, one does not see how they can be demonstrated or observed.

Then we need to recognize that "ordinary" matter -- the stuff we actually experience -- constitutes less than 5% of the total universe. According to NASA,

It turns out that roughly 68% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest -- everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter -- adds up to less than 5% of the Universe. Come to think of it, maybe it shouldn't be called "normal" matter at all, since it is such a small fraction of the Universe.

As best as I can understand it, dark energy -- which is the driver of the universal expansion -- is what constitutes the plenum.

WRT TXnMA's wonderful insights, you cannot expect to turn isotropy into anisotropy by chance. Or at least, this is astronomically unlikely. Roger Penrose puts the odds of a low-entropy universe emerging by chance at a mere 1 in 10¹⁰¹²³.

One last thought before closing that relates to the anisotrophy phenomenon:

...A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question. -- Fred Hoyle, 1981.

It's interesting to me that Hoyle was formerly an atheist whose mind was changed by advances in science itself.

[eddie willers]

It's interesting to me that Hoyle was formerly an atheist whose mind was changed by advances in science itself.

I seem to be going down the same path

When I learned there was no Santa Claus, I put away all supernatural notions.

Now I was never a cocksure, close minded Atheist because even at the age of six, I knew that I didn't know what I didn't know. So I was an agnostic who wouldn't rule out a Supreme Being, but most evidence pointed away from it.

Now as I have gotten older, many holes have appeared in the previous scientific model leaving more space for a creator to slip in.

One thing for sure, ideas from the ID people such as "irreducible complexity" MUST be explained. And back when "All Knowing" seemed an impossibility, the advance of computers, and computer memory and computer speed and the power of the digital language of "Ones & Zeros" now makes me reassess that. It IS becoming possible to know everything and see everything etc.

So at this point, I am leaning into being an ID deist. A creator started this going and either went away or is just watching the "program" run.

But after many trials and tribulations (and things seeming to always work out one way or the other), I once told my niece:

"I may not believe in God, but I'm starting to think He believes in me."

[ChessExpert]

“When I learned there was no Santa Claus, I put away all supernatural notions.”

“Santa” is an anagram of “Satan.”

[x]

“Santa” is an anagram of “Satan.”

You must be fun at Christmas.

[ChessExpert]

You are right, Gerald Schroeder. It is a powerful idea, on a par, IMO, with the anthropic principle, or intelligent design.

I hope more people give thought to Schroeder’s idea and independently examine his time-line of events.

You might be interested in The Mind & The Brain Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force, by Jeffrey Schwartz, MD:

https://www.amazon.com/Mind-Brain-Neuroplasticity-Power-Mental/dp/0060988479

From quantum mechanics (Schrödinger’s cat mentioned), to the firing of a neuron, to the development on neural nets, the author examines the physiological impact of our thoughts/decisions.

We can all visualize body builders. On a more mundane level, I quickly gain weight with a full course restaurant meal, and lose slowly by avoiding sweets and remaining active. It turns out that we are all body builders - and brain builders too.