Precise science: Quo vadis - string theory

In the context of current physics research it is on one hand, the Einstein theory of relativity and on the other side quantum physics. Both have apparent evidence on their side, but these contradict each other. However, since in both directions the same cosmos can not apply different laws, one would have to assume, that one of them is wrong, something with the basics is wrong, the research results were not interpreted correctly or due to wrong causes. Rational problem solving would certainly resolve the conflict at at the root, meaning, within the conflicting theories.

The scientific solution is somewhat different. Because a new theory was put in place – the birth of string theory – the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics were agreed. To achieve that, the string theory "only" required ten dimensions, therefore the existing three dimensions of space, time as a fourth dimension and other six dimensions, that exists only in the formulas of theoretic physicists. The M-theory may on mathematical basis with eleven dimensions unite even the currently five different string theories.

And this theory solves yet another problem of physics. On one side a persistent division of the particles is determined, because molecules are made of atoms, atoms from electrons, neutrons and protons and these in turn from other particles, etc. On the other hand, one simply has no more instruments, to always exactly follow the way of the particles in the physical microcosm.1

String theory now states, that this division is not endless, but are the actual building blocks of a kind of energy threads (strings). First, of course, the gross contradiction that a block (substance) is to consist of energy (similar f. e. to the "force particles") is obvious, because force is after exact scientific vision without substance and therefore never made up of particles. Strings of energy, force or energy particles are thus contradictions in themselves.

But the big problem of this hypothesis is the fact, that it is purely mathematical and not exactly physically or experimentally provable. These kinds of purely mathematical theories, which exist in no shortage today, should not have the slightest importance for exact science. If exact science takes hypotheses on as theories, although this is experimentally not provable, is simply not an exact science anymore.

The so clearly perceptible and constantly progressive subdivision of the particles does not end in nature quite not sure exactly at the place, where the instruments of science fail or future instruments will fail. And yet there is a clear border and that is the one which may never physically, but only mentally exceeded. But since the materialist claim is trying to explain everything solely through the measurable, the physical research is today obviously forces on paper by mathematics to adapt the reality of their outrageous hypotheses.

Energy needs to be quantized, meaning, divided into particles to have them as particle flow undergo theoretical calculations. Elementary particles are mathematically considered points and thus in physical terms, without any expansion, ergo not existent, etc. The physical basic research is now clearly not exact and certainly not a rational metaphysical science. Because it does not use the time-tested and necessary methods on metaphysical levels to come to true results.2

Moreover, its fundamentals are anything but reasonable. The base of modern physics research is the theory of relativity. The evidence for this theory is based for the most part on predictions that were set up by it and then later in experiments confirmed. Due to the confirmation of predictions on the close correctness of a theory is today common practice, however, that is no compelling evidence for the correctness of the theory. One could for example theorize that a God has something against the current way people live and make the prediction that therefore at a given time, the sun will be darkened. As you can see, theory and confirmed acceptance must not in the least be in any causal relationship. Even more surprising, that today's "exact" science is not too bad, in such a context to actually speak of evidence.

  • 1. What happens in particle accelerators may be a high performance technologically, but what is there meaningful to be found about the particles, for example an engine, if you can bounce two of them with full force on one another? Following the same method one could argue that the sparks of two successive batted flints the stones themselves are. And who thinks that this highly resistant creation is built of such extremely unstable particles or inside this particle accelerators conditions are created as a "trillionth of a second should have ruled after the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago", as it was claimed in March 2010 by CERN spokesman James Gillies.
  • 2. For example, as the Seven Hermetic axioms: (1) Spirit: The universe is spiritual. (2) Rhythm: Everything develops cyclically. (3) Causality: Every cause has its effect, (4) motion: Everything is in motion. (5) analogy: As above, so below, and vice versa. (6) duality: There are always two contradictory aspects. (7) Polarity: things affect each other repulsive or attractive.

Um am Forum teilnehmen bzw. Inhalte kommentieren zu können musst Du Dich anmelden oder registrieren.

Bitte beachten

Diese Webpräsenz widmet sich dem Thema Theosophie (insbesondere im Rahmen der Geheimlehre von Madame Helena Petrovna Blavatsky) und ist zum Zweck der Bildung einer Theosophischen Gemeinschaft ins Leben gerufen worden. Hier finden sich zudem ein Theosophie-Forum und aktuelle Inhalte rund um das Thema Theosophie bzw. Tugenden und die Vernunftwerdung. Bei der Veröffentlichung von eigenen Inhalten beachte bitte einige Hinweise.

On this site you can also find an international theosophy section and the quarterly "International Theosophy World News"-Newsletter.