If all matter is not fundamentally physical, but vibrational energy, does String Theory imply a creator?

Question

A creator composed of pure energy?

Answer 1

Perhaps it implies that music is the source of life, rather than a word. Or perhaps, that the spoken word should be sung.

Answer 2

First you have to prove the String Theory, which can be validly argued for and against by those with much more ability than I have (just not my specialty). I ahve seen some very good arguments that Einsteinian physics is the correct theory, but other ones that seem to encompass examples of both. As for evidence of a creator- well...

People generally go through 4 stages of spirituality: anarchisitic (answers to no one but self), followed by authoritarian (rules, right/ wrong, black/white). If they can get past authoritarian, the reality that there are shades of gray in a black and white world often leads to a doubting, but thoughtful approach (secular humanists fall here, as do atheists, agnostics, etc.) People lucky enough to reach out of this stage (and progress, not regress), to the mystical (despite the lack of hard evidence I know there is a higher purpose), do so because of very intense personal reasons specific to them. It can be that they saw the overwhleming beauty of a scientific theory as easily as for reasons like mine: I witnessed a true miracle, and was called for a purpose. Both are equally valid reasons that are not mutually exclusive. does this at least sort of answer the question?

Hey Printninja: no I lived it thank you for asking. A lot of great thinkers have clearly documented stages of spiritual growth (Ken Wilber's "Spectrum of Consciousness" gives a nice overview). And I do believe in human evil, by the way, but I am not yet sure of external evil.

Answer 3

now here's your real answer:

String theory remains to be confirmed. No version of string theory has yet made an experimentally verified prediction that differs from those made by other theories. In this sense, string theory is still in a "larval stage": it is not a proper physical theory. It possesses many features of mathematical interest and may yet become important in our understanding of the universe, but it requires further developments before it is accepted or discarded. Since string theory may not be tested in the foreseeable future, some scientists[7] have asked if it even deserves to be called a scientific theory: it is not falsifiable in the sense of Popper.

For example, while supersymmetry is now seen as a vital ingredient of string theory, supersymmetric models with no obvious connection to string theory are also studied. Therefore, if supersymmetry were detected at the Large Hadron Collider it would not be seen as a direct confirmation of the theory. More importantly, if supersymmetry were not detected, there are vacua in string theory in which supersymmetry would only be seen at much higher energies, so its absence would not falsify string theory. By contrast, if observing the Sun during a solar eclipse had not shown that the Sun's gravity deflected light by the predicted amount, Einstein's general relativity theory would have been proven wrong.

One hope for testing string theory is that a better understanding of how string theory deals with singularities and time-dependent backgrounds would allow physicists to understand the predictions of string theory for the big bang, and see how cosmic inflation can be incorporated into the theory. This has led to some deep theoretical progress, and some early models of string cosmology, such as brane inflation, trans-Planckian effects, string gas cosmology and the ekpyrotic universe, but fundamental progress must be made before it is understood what, if any, distinctive predictions the theory makes for cosmology. A recent popular suggestion is that brane inflation may produce cosmic strings which could be observed through their gravitational radiation, or lensing of distant galaxies or the cosmic microwave background.

On a more mathematical level, another problem is that, like many quantum field theories, much of string theory is still only formulated perturbatively (i.e., as a series of approximations rather than as an exact solution). Although nonperturbative techniques have progressed considerably – including conjectured complete definitions in space-times satisfying certain asymptotics – a full non-perturbative definition of the theory is still lacking.

Philosophically, string theory cannot be truly fundamental in its present formulation because it is background-dependent: each string theory is built on a fixed spacetime background. Since a dynamic spacetime is the central tenet of general relativity, the hope is that M-theory will turn out to be background-independent, giving as solutions the many different versions of string theories, but no one yet knows how such a fundamental theory can be constructed. A related problem is that the best understood backgrounds of string theory preserve much of the supersymmetry of the underlying theory, and thus are time-invariant: string theory cannot yet deal well with time-dependent, cosmological backgrounds.

Another problem is that the vacuum structure of the theory, called the string theory landscape, is not well understood. As string theory is presently understood, it appears to contain a large number of distinct vacua, perhaps 10500 or more. Each of these corresponds to a different universe, with a different collection of particles and forces. What principle, if any, can be used to select among these vacua is an open issue. While there are no known continuous parameters in the theory, there is a very large discretuum (coined in contradistinction to continuum) of possible universes, which may be radically different from each other. Some physicists believe this is a benefit of the theory, as it may allow a natural anthropic explanation of the observed values of physical constants, in particular the small value of the cosmological constant. However, such explanations are not usually regarded as scientific in the Popperian sense.

Answer 4

What would it matter. If we discover there is a god, or prove there isn't, life would not change. If there is a god, we already know it ignores us. If there isn't, we are no worse off than before we had proof.

(Hey Hauntedfox - did you plagiarize that nonsense from the book People of the Lie? It's almost the same exact drivel that M. Scott Peck wrote.)

Answer 5

I enjoy science as long as they are not trying to disprove Gods existence, but boy that string theory is hard for me to com template.