Re: String Theory

From: janice matchett <>
Date: Mon Aug 08 2005 - 00:57:06 EDT

I've heard that the String Theory has already been proved 'wrong' and is
passe in physics. It's been replaced by the "M" theory (membrane) which
solved all the gaps that existed in the String Theory. That's all I know.


At 12:20 AM 8/8/2005, John Hewlett wrote:
>Hey guys and gals, well I have been reading a little bit about string
>theory. I have read enough to still be about 2 degrees shy of completely
>clueless. Never the less it looks like a very odd and strange theory. I
>was curious if you guys know any physicist that are in ASA or elsewhere
>that hold a theistic universal veiw that are experts in string theory?
>First of all, I have a question, I listened to an interview by Brian
>Greene on NPR and I know he is an expert on the string theory who hold NO
>theistics veiws at all. This is you learn in the interview because he says
>so, very plainly. The news caster says well these extrademisions could
>house our spiritual conceptions, and he said "I would disuade you from
>thinking that because we expect that we will eventually predict the
>behavior of these demisions, and therefor basically since you can't
>predict theology, I would not encourage you to think this way" [I was
>parapharsing but it is really pretty close]. She responded by say!
>ing "Well whats wrong with faith?" And he said "Nothing at all, my brother
>is hindu and yada yada yada... he said you can never disprove the concept
>of God because one can always say 'thats the way God made it'" Which I
>would have to agree with.
>Now I find this, infact I personally have never seen a theistic assault by
>the string theory. Now I have heard this, that the string theory "CAN
>explain the four fundimental forces in physics", now I know that alot of
>people may say "hey, well if this explains it then God gets pushed out",
>and I could see why this is the case if you subscribe to the God of the
>Gaps, where the gaps get smaller. Which I do not subscribe to, because as
>Galileo once said "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who
>has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo
>their use." And not to give you my anti-treatise on the Gaps philosophy,
>but I think we should investigate nature to the ends of our ability.
>But I draw (at least in my veiw, and I don't get attacked for saying this)
>a falasy from the logic of "Welp its completely explained, so well we
>don't need a creator anymore now so..." because the same could be said
>about evolution too, and we have seen this before, Richard Dawkins said
>something like "After darwins theory I don't know how any could beleive in
>religion". What a load of crap (pardon my language), I happen to not find
>ANY ANY ANY problem with evolution at all (darwinian or not), and I just
>don't think it is a threat at all. I tend to kind of fallow Kenneth Miller
>from brown in his veiws (sort of). And I find it completely intellectually
>fullfilling to beleive an Christian and hold these veiws. Now you are
>THEORY?" Well couldn't the same principle be drawn of string theory?
>Going back to evolution I would like to elaborate because its a good
>theory to do so with. First all, in Darwinian evolution we are taught
>random mutations and natural selection (among other stuff) are accountable
>for the diversity of life on earth. Ok, well thats just hunky dory and I
>can live with that explanation. NOW the point here is, I AM IN NO WAY
>saying God plays no role in evolution. Infact I beleive the oposite
>because I don't think we (humans) are aquainted with all the details. I
>strongly and confidently feel that just because it looks "random" or
>godless (meaning God plays no role) to us, doesn't mean that it is to God.
>I think God plays a role in all of nature. And if string theory works out,
>then I will in all likely hood feel the same way.
>So basically I was just wondering if there were any christians or
>theistically inclined people working in String theory these days?
>Would anybody here thats in physics like to give me some comments on their
>views of the String theory?
>I hope I haven't made any of you all mad, if my little off shoot
>philosophy of nature, about my (possibly strange and unacceptable [in some
>of your eyes]) veiws of evolution. My intention was to simply show that
>because they say "all is explained" I don't feel the same, as I feel God,
>works through nature in "mysterious ways" and in ways we can see, those
>being the laws of nature themselves. So my intention was not to upset you,
>but to say, hey maybe not all is truely explained. And I feel that this
>same thinking might also apply to the string theory.
>Sign-up for Ads Free at
Received on Mon Aug 8 00:58:38 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Aug 08 2005 - 00:58:38 EDT