The Universe as We Understand It May Be Impossible

The Atlantic ^ | Natalie Wolchover and Quanta Magazine

[nickcarraway]

A new conjecture in physics challenges the leading “theory of everything.”

On June 25, Timm Wrase awoke in Vienna and groggily scrolled through an online repository of newly posted physics papers. One title startled him into full consciousness.

The paper, by the prominent string theorist Cumrun Vafa of Harvard and his collaborators, conjectured a simple formula dictating which kinds of universes are allowed to exist and which are forbidden, according to string theory. The leading candidate for a “theory of everything” weaving the force of gravity together with quantum physics, string theory defines all matter and forces as vibrations of tiny strands of energy. The theory permits some 10500 different solutions: a vast, varied “landscape” of possible universes.* String theorists like Wrase and Vafa have strived for years to place our particular universe somewhere in this landscape of possibilities.

But now, Vafa and his colleagues were conjecturing that in the string landscape, universes like ours—or what ours is thought to be like—don’t exist. If the conjecture is correct, Wrase and other string theorists immediately realized, the cosmos must either be profoundly different than previously supposed or string theory must be wrong.

[jonrick46]

I am thinking that the closer we get to understanding the properties of matter, the closer we get to understanding God.

[fso301]

This is where “Impossible Burgers” come from.

I was curious and tried one of those things. The name is correct. It is impossible that I will order another one of those things again.

[Jimmy Valentine]

Whoops! A big chunk of grant money just went up in smoke!

[Openurmind]

“I find the universe to be rather clumpy.”

That would change the variables wouldn’t it? From the article everything they are doing is to “try and explain why it is smooth and flat”. How do they know it is smooth and flat in the first place? If it is clumpy it would negate everything they doing right? Already been barking up the wrong tree the whole time?

[jpsb]

In physics you can never be right, you can only be proven wrong.

[jpsb]

First there was nothing and then it exploded.

[cgbg]

“Many evolutionists (the honest ones) admit they hold to that theory because the only alternative is a Creator and they refuse to accept it.”

Telos (design, purpose) can exist without a Creator.

I know you don’t get that—and scientists don’t get it either....

Everybody needs to drop all their cultural assumptions and start all over again....

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Fractal Trader.

---

---

· List topics · post a topic · subscribe · Google ·

---

---

Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law by Peter Woit | September 4, 2007

---

[Reily]

Great book!

[BroJoeK]

"I thought The Hokey Pokey was what it's all about."

Only if you first turn yourself about -- which sort of seems like what they're getting ready to do, doesn't it?

Let's call it the quantum hokey string pokey-T.O.E.!

Maybe that's what it's all about?

[BraveMan]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey6ugTmCYMk

[boatbums]

Telos (design, purpose) can exist without a Creator. I know you don’t get that—and scientists don’t get it either.... Everybody needs to drop all their cultural assumptions and start all over again....

How do you get "design, purpose" without a designER? Is having a personal God/Creator your sticking point? How do you start all over again with no assumptions when you begin with recognizing design and purpose to the universe?

[cgbg]

Von Neumann machines, nanotechnology, time loops, parallel universes and then throw in consciousness as an aspect of some sorts of matter.

You can mix and match those—and that is just based on today’s limited imagination—a civilization a thousand years ahead of us could probably come up with many more possibilities.

We are primitive apes—with a nasty touch of arrogance to go with our ignorance.

[boatbums]

And you still avoid the all-important question...FIRST CAUSE? The First Cause Argument

[boatbums]

And you still avoid the all-important question...FIRST CAUSE? The First Cause Argument

[cgbg]

“First Cause” has a bunch of hidden assumptions—any or all of which may prove to be incorrect.

It totally begs the question—a question we cannot even begin to understand, much less answer.

For starters we do not even know how time works—whether it is truly sequential or whether that is just a manifestation of the way our minds work.

[boatbums]

People smarter than you or I could ever hope to be have pondered the question of origin/first cause for thousands of years. You simply cannot begin to understand much less answer that question without basic assumptions. You'd have to ignore far too much and what good would that do you?

Why not just admit you reject a God/Creator/Designer and invent your own theory of everything or you could do like many atheists and surmise aliens did it? Of course, where THEY came from has to be ignored. ;o)

The answers ARE there if you earnestly seek to know. God says He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. It takes faith to please Him but you would have to exercise that muscle regardless of your conclusion. I hope you find the answers.

[sourcery]

Correct.

[xp38]

Actually Sheldon had a crisis about string theory a season or two before I stopped watching. He then abandoned string theory and presumably remained string free for the rest of the shows run.

[xp38]

Actually Sheldon had a crisis about string theory a season or two before I stopped watching. He then abandoned string theory and presumably remained string free for the rest of the run.