Tag Archives: M-theory

Abstract digital artwork featuring swirling golden and orange lines against a dark purple and black background.

Is String Theory Pseudoscience?

Categories, Physics, , ,

Is string theory pseudoscience? To address this questions, let’s start by understanding what constitutes science and distinguishes it from pseudoscience.

Let’s start by defining science. Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. The important words in this definition are “observation” and “experiment.” In other words, real science, and scientific theories, requires its hypotheses and associated predictions to be observable and/or be experimentally verified. One example of a solid scientific theory is Einstein’s special theory of relativity. It has withstood over one hundred years of observation and experimental scrutiny. In fact, it is generally held as the “gold standard” that all theories of science should be measured against.

With the above understanding, if I were to propose a new theory that by its inherent nature had at its core hypotheses that we are unable to experimentally verify and yielded predictions we would not be able to observe or measure, I believe many would consider such a theory to be pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific, but are not verified, or verifiable, by experiment or  observation.

Now let’s examine string theory. String theory is built on the idea that elementary particles are not point-like objects, but are the vibration modes of one-dimensional “string-like” entities of energy. Proponents of string theory generally argue that it offers a theory of gravity and may provide a solution to the problem of reconciling Einstein’s general relativity with quantum mechanics. Therefore, if it were a valid theory, it would represent a leap in the physical sciences. However, there in lies the key question. Is it a valid theory?

Let start with its hypotheses. Can we measure or observe the one-dimensional vibrating strings of energy that form the core hypotheses of string theory? The answer is no, and that is an emphatic no. We cannot measure them with today’s science, and it is unlikely that we will ever be able to measure them. According string theorist the one-dimensional vibrating strings of energy are about equal to the Planck length, which is the smallest length science theorizes to exist. It is equal to 1.616199(97)×10^−35 meters and is defined from three fundamental physical constants, which I won’t to into here for the sake of brevity. The problem is that today’s science is unable to measure anything smaller than 10^-18 meters, which is billions of times larger than a Planck length. Many in the science community do not think we will ever be able to measure a Planck length, regardless of improvements in measurement technology. Therefore, the first significant problem with string theory is that its hypotheses are not verifiable.

Let’s next look at a significant predictions of string theory. In its current form, M-theory (i.e., membrane-theory, the most comprehensive form of string theory), it predicts there are 11 space-time dimensions, in serious disagreement with our senses and the most recent observations using particle accelerators. There is no experimental evidence of additional dimensions beyond the 4 space-time dimensions of Einstein’s general relativity.

There are arguably other issues with string theory, but the above two points, the lack of experimental verification of its hypotheses and its most fundamental prediction of 11 dimensions, serve to make an important point. It fails to pass the definition of science. String theory doesn’t  provide an intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. It is not only unverified, but appears to be unverifiable at its core.

It’s natural to ask, why has string theory gained such a following in the scientific community. First, modern theoretical physics is based on two incompatible theories, Einstein’s theories of relativity and quantum mechanics. As I mentioned in a previous post, some progress has been made to reconcile them, but no progress has been made with regard to a unified theory of gravity. This has caused serious issues in the scientific community and it is only human to seek a theory that offers to resolve the issue. However, in this case, we are taking a theory that is flawed and unverifiable to attempt to reconcile relativity and quantum mechanics, both of which have been widely successful as theories within their specific context. Next, numerous formidable physicists, like Stephen Hawking and Brian Greene, have written best selling books based on string theory. To the average popular science reader, their books are exciting and their standing in the scientific community suggests their books are science fact. How is it possible that Dr. Hawking and Dr. Greene are in such strong support of a questionable theory. I think this has to do with the mathematical elegance of M-theory. It is relatively easy to become enamored with the mathematical formulations and loose sight of the fundamentals. Unfortunately, I think this has happened. Dr. Hawking has gone as far as saying we no longer need a God since we now have M-theory. Opponents rightly ask, where did M-theory come from? I am not going to get into the religious aspects. I only point this out to delineate how deeply some of today’s most respected physicists have embraced string theory.

Where do I stand? Obviously, today’s theoretical physics is based on two incompatible theories, Einstein’s relativity and quantum mechanics. Although, both theories work extremely well in the specific contexts, relativity at the macro level and quantum mechanics at the micro or quantum level (i.e., the level of atoms and subatomic particles), they do not come together to provide cogent theory of gravity. Even though string theory offers a speculative path to resolve the incompatibilities, at its core it appears to be pseudoscience. At best, it is a conjecture, which means it falls into the category of opinion.

I offer this sober warning to those that plan on making a career in science. Before you decide to become a string theorist and spend your career working to understand M-theory mathematics, be sure that you agree with the fundamental hypotheses and predictions of string theory. Don’t fall hopelessly in love with the elegant mathematics. Just because you can publish your theoretical string theory results in respectable scientific journals and participate in professional conferences doesn’t legitimize string theory. Much like a recovering alcoholic, science must admit there is a problem and not grasp at the current fad of string theory. It is better to admit we don’t have a solution than to forward what is likely the most legitimized pseudoscience of modern times, string theory.

Close-up of translucent marbles with swirling colors against a vibrant red background.

Are There Other Universes?

Big Bang Science Theory, Categories, Multiverse, Physics, Universe Mysteries, , , , ,

With the advent of M-theory (i.e., membrane theory, the most comprehensive string theory), the concept of other universes (i.e., multiverse) has gained some traction in the scientific community. According to M-theory, when two membranes collide, they form a universe. The collision is what we observed as the Big Bang when our universe formed. From that standpoint, universes continually form via other Big Bangs (collisions of membranes). Is this believable? Actually, It is highly speculative. At this point, we must admit no conclusive evidence of a multiverse exists. In fact, numerous problems with the multiverse theories are known.

All multiverse theories share three significant problems.

  1. None of the multiverse theories explains the origin of the initial energy to form the universe. They, in effect, sidestep the question entirely. Mainstream science believes, via inference, in the reality of energy. Therefore, it is a valid question to ask: what is the origin of energy needed to form a multiverse? M-theory does not provide an answer.
  2. No conclusive experimental evidence proves that multiverses exist. This is not to say that they do not exist. Eventually, novel experiments may prove their existence. However, to date no experiment or observation has proved M-theory as correct or the existence of other universes.
  3. Critics argue it is poor science. We are postulating universes we cannot see or measure in order to explain the universe we can see and measure. This is another way of saying it violates Occam’s razor, which states states that the simplest explanation is the most plausible one.

Is it possible to use technologies associated with astronomy to detect other universes? The answer is maybe, and that is a big MAYBE! What does astronomy teach us? The the farthest-away entity we can see in space is the cosmic microwave background, which is thermal radiation assumed to be left over from the Big Bang. The cosmic microwave background actually blocks us from looking deeper into space. However, some highly recent discoveries regarding the cosmic microwave background have been made that suggest there may be other universes. Let’s look at those discoveries.

A growing number of scientists  cite evidence that our universe bumped into other universes in the distant past. What is the evidence? They cite unusual ring patterns on the cosmic microwave background. The cosmic microwave background is remarkably uniform, with the exception of the unusual ring patterns. Scientists attribute the ring patterns to bumps from other universes. Two articles discuss this finding.

  • First evidence of other universes that exist alongside our own after scientists spot “cosmic bruises,” by Niall Firth, December 17, 2010 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk).
  • Is Our Universe Inside a Bubble? First Observational Test of the “Multiverse.” ScienceDaily.com, August 3, 2011.

Obviously, this is controversial, and even the scientist involved caution the results are initial findings, not proof. It is still intriguing, and lends fuel to the concept of there being other universes. This would suggest time, in the cosmic sense, transcends the Big Bang. As impossible as it would seem to prove other universes, science has founds ways of proving similar scientific mysteries. The prominent physicist, Michio Kaku, said it best in Voices of Truth (Nina L. Diamond, 2000), “A hundred years ago, Auguste Compte, … a great philosopher, said that humans will never be able to visit the stars, that we will never know what stars are made out of, that that’s the one thing that science will never ever understand, because they’re so far away. And then, just a few years later, scientists took starlight, ran it through a prism, looked at the rainbow coming from the starlight, and said: ‘Hydrogen!’ Just a few years after this very rational, very reasonable, very scientific prediction was made, that we’ll never know what stars are made of.” This argues that what seems impossible to prove today might be a scientific fact tomorrow.

What does this all add up to? First, from both a mathematical perspective and observations from astronomy, we have evidence that suggests the theory of other universes (i.e., multiverse) may be correct. However, the evidence, though compelling to some, is not conclusive. I suggest keeping an open mind. What we don’t understand via today’s science may yield to tomorrows science.

Universe's Accelerated Expansion

Philosophical Thoughts About Science and Truth

Categories, Physics, Universe Mysteries, , ,

Theoretical physics, often refereed to as the purist form of science, rests on two incompatible theories:

1. Einstein’s theory of special and general relativity

2. Quantum mechanics

Both theories work well in their limited range of application, relativity at the macro-level and quantum mechanics at the micro-level of atoms and subatomic particles. However, the mathematical underpinnings of each theory are not mutually compatible. Attempting to combine them mathematically has led to numerous singularities (i.e., mathematical expressions that equate with one or more infinities and remain undefined). They also do not mutually explain gravity. While general relativity does propose a physical and mathematical theory of gravity, it cannot be extended to the quantum level.

New theories have been proposed to resolve this dilemma. The current most widely proposed solution is M-theory (i.e., the highest level string theory). Without going too deeply into the details, it proposes that all reality is composed of one-dimensional vibrating strings of energy. The mathematics is elegant and apparently highly compelling to world-class physicists like Stephen Hawking, who argues it is the theory of everything and we no longer need a God to explain the universe. There are only two problems with Dr. Hawking’s assertions. First, M-theory has not been verified by any scientific experiment or observation. Today’s science is unable to measure the one-dimensional vibrating strings of energy, if they indeed exist. The second problem is that even if M-theory is correct, there is still an unanswered question. What is it that established that level of order in the universe that would allow us to understand it mathematically? Some reply God, and some ignore the questions entirely. Others, like Lawence Maxwell Krauss, an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist, have gone to great lengths to prove the universe is energy neutral and, thus, could have came from nothing. Still, even if Dr. Krauss is correct, what gives rise to the organized nature of the universe? I think that is the most difficult question to answer, and no one has proposed an widely accepted scientific answer.

Given the current state of theoretical physics, it is reasonable to ask how close is today’s science to reality (i.e., the truth)? Factually, I don’t think we know. We only know that various theories, like quantum mechanics, work well in their limited range of application. We also know that we don’t have a single provable theory of everything. While science has made remarkable strides over the last century, we still do not have one provable theory that explains all observed phenomena at both the macro and quantum level.

What does this mean? I think it means that while the experiments and observations of reality may be indisputable, the science and mathematics are not. If you think about it, theoretical physics is in a terrible schizophrenic state.

Let us turn our attention to Dr. Hawking’s claim that we don’t need a God since we have M-theory. Dr. Hawking has been severely criticized for this assertion. Most critics simply ask, where did M-theory come from? Again, we get back to the apparent order of the universe. My view is that we cannot prove or disprove a supernatural entity, like God, using the natural sciences. If God exists, then by the nature of being God, we are dealing with an entity that is outside the physical realm. God would be a supernatural entity. Thus, we would be unable to use the natural sciences, like physics, to prove or disprove  a supernatural entity exists.

Every person, scientist or lay person, needs to make up their own mind about God. In addition, since we are dealing with beliefs and not facts, we should respect each other’s right to believe or disbelieve as each of us sees fit.

Abstract fractal pattern resembling a cosmic or underwater scene with glowing blue and white textures.

Do We Need M-Theory? Maybe!

Categories, Multiverse, Physics, Universe Mysteries, , ,

Most high school science classes teach the classical view of the atom, incorporating subatomic particles like protons, electrons, and neutrons. This is the particle theory of the atom dating to the early Twentieth Century. In about the 1960s, scientists discovered more subatomic particles. By the 1970s, scientists discovered that protons and neutrons consist of subatomic particles called quarks (an elementary particle not known to have a substructure). In the 1980s, a mathematical model called string theory, was developed. It is a branch of theoretical physics. String theory sought to explain how to construct all particles and energy in the universe via hypothetical one-dimensional “strings.” Subatomic particles are no longer extremely small masses. Instead, they are oscillating lines of energy, hence the name “strings.” In addition, the latest string theory (M-theory) asserts that the universe is eleven dimensions, not the four-spacetime dimensions we currently experience in our daily lives. String theory was one of science’s first attempts at a theory of everything (a complete mathematical model that describes all fundamental forces and matter).

In about the mid-1990s, scientists considered the equivalences of the various string theories, and the five leading string theories were combined into a one comprehensive theory, M-theory. M-theory postulates eleven dimensions of space filled with membranes, existing in the Bulk (super-universe). The Bulk contains an infinite number of membranes, or “branes” for short.

According to M-theory, when two branes collide, they form a universe. The collision is what we observed as the Big Bang when our universe formed. From that standpoint, universes continually form via other Big Bangs (collisions of branes).

Does this explain the true origin of the energy? No! It still begs the question: where does the energy come from to create the membranes? The even-bigger question: is there any scientific proof of the multiverse? Recently, several scientists claim unusual ring patterns on the cosmic microwave background might be the result of other universes colliding with ours. However, even the scientists forwarding this theory suggest caution. It is speculative. At this point, we must admit no conclusive evidence of a multiverse exists. In fact, numerous problems with the multiverse theories are known. This does not mean there are no multiverses. Currently, though, we have no conclusive experimental proof, but do have numerous unanswered questions.

All multiverse theories share three significant problems.

1) None of the multiverse theories explains the origin of the initial energy to form the universe. They, in effect, sidestep the question entirely.

2) No conclusive experimental evidence proves that multiverses exist. This is not to say that they do not exist. It just means we cannot prove they exist.

3) Critics argue it is poor science. We are postulating universes we cannot see or measure in order to explain the universe we can see and measure.

However, in the last hundred years, we have made discoveries, and experimentally verified phenomena that in prior centuries would have been considered science fiction, metaphysics, magic, and unbelievable. We discovered numerous secrets of the universe, once believed to be only the Milky Way galaxy—to now being an uncountable number of galaxies in a space that is expanding exponentially. We also unlocked the secrets of the atom, once believed to be the fundamental building block of matter (from the Greek atomos “uncut”). Currently, we understand the atom consists of electrons, protons, and neutrons, which themselves consist of subatomic particles like quarks. The list of discoveries that have transformed our understanding of reality over the last century is endless. From my perspective, skepticism can be healthy. However, one cannot be entirely closed-minded when it comes to exploring the boundaries of science.

This brings us to the crucial question: Do we need M-Theory? My answer is: Maybe! Right now, it’s the only “mainstream” game in town. It has numerous respected proponents, including world-renowned cosmologist/physicist Stephen Hawking. However, the “mainstream” has been wrong before, and we are in uncharted waters. It may be right, and the mathematics is elegant. The only thing missing is experimental evidence (i.e., proof). On this one, you’ll have to weigh the facts and draw your own conclusion.

Source: Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries (2012), Louis A. Del Monte

Image: iStockPhoto (licensed)

 

 

Close-up view of translucent blue spherical cells or microscopic organisms against a dark background.

Virtual Particles – Something from Nothing – Part 3/3 (Conclusion)

Categories, Universe Mysteries, , , ,

This three part post is the first chapter of my book, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries. Here is part 3. Enjoy!

Are there hidden dimensions or is this science fiction? The scientific answer is: we don’t know. However, as Edward Witten (American theoretical physicist) said, “As far as extra dimensions are concerned, very tiny extra dimensions would not be perceived in everyday life, just as atoms are not: we see many atoms together but we do not see atoms individually.” We know atoms exist, but we cannot see them. Could this be true of hidden dimensions? How do we experimentally prove the hidden dimensions of M-theory? Currently, scientists are using the largest particle colliders to create near speed-of-light collisions between subatomic particles. To understand this approach to prove hidden dimensions, we need to understand what is occurring when a particle with a mass is accelerated near the speed of light, resulting in a relativistic kinetic energy (energy due to its motion). The total mass-energy of the accelerated particle is equal to the mass plus the relativistic kinetic energy. By causing two particles of known mass-energy to collide, they are able to determine if the sum of all the mass-energy before the collision equals the mass-energy after the collision. Two important laws are utilized to make this calculation. Einstein’s famous mass-energy equivalence (E=mc2, where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum), and the conversation of energy law (which states energy cannot be created nor destroyed). By painstakingly accounting for all of the mass-energy before the collision to the mass-energy after the collision, they are able to look for missing mass-energy. If they find such a result, it could imply additional dimensions. That is to say, the mass-energy went into another dimension. These experiments continue as I write. The next few years should be very exciting.

This brings up a crucial question that may have already occurred to you. Could the Big Bang itself be the result of a quantum fluctuation, similar to how virtual particles form? We will scientifically examine that possibility in the next chapter.

Author’s note: I hope you enjoyed chapter 1 of Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries. You can browse the table of contents and addtional portions of the book on Amazon. Just click on this link:  Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries.

M-theory

M-theory Explained

Categories, Multiverse, , , ,

M-theory — Physicist Louis Del Monte discusses the discoveries leading to M-theory. Del Monte explains M-theory’s “membrane universes” (i.e. branes) and the 11-dimensions predicted by the theory. According to M-theory, a collision between branes gives birth to a new universe. In this context, according to M-theory, the Big Bang would be a result of a collision between branes.

Del Monte explains the two major criticisms M-theory’s opponents assert:

1. M-theory is not provable. Therefore, many in the scientific community do not consider it a valid theory of science.

2. M-theory does not explain the origin of the energy to create membrane universes, or to spawn new universes when branes collide.

In summary, opponents assert we are trying to explain a universe we can experience and measure with an M-theory universe that we cannot experience and measure.

Del Monte’s position: As a theory of the universe, especially in creating universes, M-theory is not provable with today’s technology. Until it is provable, we should view it as mathematical construct. It does not address the fundamental question: where did the energy originate to create the membranes? However, M-theory does offer some useful tools, via its prediction of an 11-dimension universe. This may provide clues in understanding other physical phenomena, such as virtual particles.

This subject is also fully discussed in Louis Del Monte’s new book, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries (available in paper back or as an eBook on Amazon http://amzn.to/Zo1TGn and Barnes & Noble http://bit.ly/RAv4FL).

For more information about Louis Del Monte, please follow Louis Del Monte on Twitter (https://twitter.com/delmontelouis), and view his Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/DelMonte.Louis

A vibrant cosmic scene with a glowing galaxy, bright stars, and a planet silhouetted in the foreground.

Dark Matter May Be Energy

Categories, Universe Mysteries, ,

Ever since its discovery by Fritz Zwicky (California Institute of Technology) in 1933, scientists, philosophers, and laypeople have pondered: what is dark matter?

Let us start by delineating the nature of dark matter based on current scientific observations:

  • It is not in the visible spectrum. We cannot see it. It does not absorb or emit electromagnetic radiation (i.e. light).
  • It does not strongly interact with other forms of energy or matter.
  • It does exhibit gravitational effects. For example, it can bend light via its gravitational effects similar to the way ordinary matter is able to bend light.
  • It makes up about 95% of the matter in the universe.
  • It is concentrated within galaxies and acts almost like glue holding all the stars together in a constant fixed orbit around the center of the galaxy.
  • It is absent between galaxies.

The most popular theory of dark matter is that it is a slow-moving particle, which travels up to a tenth of the speed of light. Scientists call the mass associated with dark matter a “WIMP” (Weakly Interacting Massive Particle).

On the surface this would seem to be a reasonable theory, but two issues raise serious concern about the existence of the WIMP particle:

  1. The Standard Model of particle physics does not predict the WIMP particle. The Standard Model is highly regarded as one of modern science’s most successful theories. Since the Standard Model does not predict a WIMP particle, we have a serious basis to question whether the WIMP particle exists.
  2. All experiments to detect the WIMP particle have to date been unsuccessful, including considerable effort by Stanford University, University of Minnesota, and Fermilab.

In my book, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries, I suggest a new line of research and theoretical enquiry. I posit the theoretical understanding of dark matter lies in M-theory (the unified theory of all string theories). I am not suggesting we abandon our current research, but rather broaden it.

Consider these hypotheses.

  • Dark matter is in one of the not spatial dimensions of M-theory: Since finding the WIMP particle has proved elusive, it may not reside in the typical three-dimensional space where we conduct our experiments. M-theory posits eleven dimensions. This opens up the possibility that the WIMP particle may reside in one of non-spatial dimensions predicted by M-theory.
  • Dark matter is not a particle, but a quantum (discrete packet) of energy: Dark matter may not be a particle, but a quantum of energy. We know that mass and energy are equivalent from Einstein’s famous mass-energy equivalence equation, E = mc2, where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum. This would also explain why the Standard Model does not predict the WIMP particle.

In my book, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries, I suggest experimental methods to determine the validity of the above hypotheses.

It is hard, if not impossible, to believe that most of the mass in the universe has eluded detection and may not be mass, but energy.

Welcome to the edge of science, where physics and metaphysics blurs.