String Theory Co-Founder: Sub-Atomic Particles Are Evidence the Universe Was Created

[Shadow Wolf]

Man claims intelligence and relates everything to their own perceptions and existence. We know that is extremely limited and full of fallacies. My best way of describing it would be intelligence=truth. It does not need man to interpret it. It simply is. As Dr. Kaku said "The mind of God, we believe, is cosmic music, the music of strings resonating through 11-dimensional hyperspace.”

This is just my own opinion and I am also just as limited by my human existence and still trying to make sense of it all!

I've seen the interview where he said that. But he most certainly and most definitely is not talking about some sort of personal deity. Think of Einstein; He wrote negatively about such a belief, yet he believed in Spinoza's god and used the term god metaphorically.

 

[Ouroboros]

"Michio Kaku added, "analyzing the behavior of matter at the subatomic scale, hit by the pitch radius semi tachyon for the first time in history, a tiny point in space, totally free of any influence of the universe, matter, force, or law, is perceived in an unprecedented way absolute chaos. So, what we call chance no longer makes more sense, because we are in a universe governed by established rules and hazards not determined by universal plane. This means that, in all probability, there is an unknown force that governs everything, "said the scientist".

Michio Kaku added, "Someone did Einstein once the big question: Is there a God? And Einstein replied that, first, to be a scientist you have to specify well what is understood as God. If you understand God as a figure that is prayed, a figure that gives and takes part, then the answer is no. But he believed in a God represented by the order, harmony, beauty, simplicity and elegance, the God of Spinoza. The universe could be chaotic and ugly, but instead is beautiful, simple and governed by simple mathematical rules."

It's beautiful. Love it.

But I can't help but to think and relate of it to Heraclitus and Logos. The world in chaos (like flames of fire), but Logos gives it order.

 

[Ouroboros]

Man claims intelligence and relates everything to their own perceptions and existence. We know that is extremely limited and full of fallacies. My best way of describing it would be intelligence=truth. It does not need man to interpret it. It simply is. As Dr. Kaku said "The mind of God, we believe, is cosmic music, the music of strings resonating through 11-dimensional hyperspace.”

This is just my own opinion and I am also just as limited by my human existence and still trying to make sense of it all!

Of course. And by the way, I'm not criticizing or against Kaku's or your views. I'm just trying to see if they're the same as mine. (By the way, intelligence=truth=logos, hence my thoughts go to Heraclitus)

And I think they might be, or at least very close. I call my view pantheistic, or rather panentheistic. My thoughts and views lean towards Heraclitus and Spinoza, and I've learned that Einstein's views were also very close to them and my own.

Would you call yourself a deist rather than pantheist/panentheist? Is your God (and Kaku's) separate from the world (like in monotheism or deism) and not part of the universe? Or is it just simply that you don't want to give your (and Kaku's) beliefs a specific label?

 

[Dante Writer]

I've seen the interview where he said that. But he most certainly and most definitely is not talking about some sort of personal deity. Think of Einstein; He wrote negatively about such a belief, yet he believed in Spinoza's god and used the term god metaphorically.

Where did I say he claimed a personal deity?

Appears you are arguing your own religious beliefs?

 

[Dante Writer]

Of course. And by the way, I'm not criticizing or against Kaku's or your views. I'm just trying to see if they're the same as mine.

And I think they are, or at least very close. I call my view pantheistic, or rather panentheistic. My thoughts and views lean towards Heraclitus and Spinoza, and I've learned that Einstein's views were also very close to them and my own.

Would you call yourself a deist rather than pantheist/panentheist? Is your God (and Kaku's) separate from the world (like in monotheism or deism) and not part of the universe? Or is it just simply that you don't want to give your (and Kaku's) beliefs a specific label?

The problem I see is you are trying to relate what Kaku said to existing religious beliefs because he used the term "God". I can understand that but I believe a better term for what he is describing is the laws or mathematics or music that exists in the background that is in control of everything. No conductor necessary and not intelligence as we are able to relate to.

Were the laws of science created or do they simply exist and have always existed?

 

[Ouroboros]

The problem I see is you are trying to relate what Kaku said to existing religious beliefs because he used the term "God". I can understand that but I believe a better term for what he is describing is the laws or mathematics or music that exists in the background that is in control of everything. No conductor necessary and not intelligence as we are able to relate to.

Which to me sounds very close to Spinoza's and Heraclitus' beliefs (and they're considered pantheists).

So I can only conclude that you're just unwilling to use or relate to existing labels because of their baggage. I can totally relate to that.

Were the laws of science created or do they simply exist and have always existed?

They in constant change. I believe existence, as such, or reality, is eternal, but the laws that govern any particular or distinct existence or reality (as our universe) is in constant flux. Even the Big Bang theory consider that many of the laws of physics came about in the event, and were different or didn't exist prior. So I'd say the answer isn't a simple one.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Michio Kaku is most certainly not a theist, but rather he uses terms such as "god" in a metaphorical way, much like Einstein did, and even the Science World article mentions Spinoza.

How did you manage to miss ...

“To me it is clear that we exists in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.”​

 

[McBell]

Were the laws of science created or do they simply exist and have always existed?

Anything other than "I do not know" is dishonest.

 

[Dante Writer]

Which to me sounds very close to Spinoza's and Heraclitus' beliefs (and they're considered pantheists).

So I can only conclude that you're just unwilling to use or relate to existing labels because of their baggage. I can totally relate to that.


They in constant change. I believe existence, as such, or reality, is eternal, but the laws that govern any particular or distinct existence or reality (as our universe) is in constant flux. Even the Big Bang theory consider that many of the laws of physics came about in the event, and were different or didn't exist prior. So I'd say the answer isn't a simple one.

I do not tie myself to any religious beliefs or scientific theories.

There are laws in the universe that do not change. Energy can not be created or destroyed. All energy came from the same source and will eventually return to that source. Our understanding of the laws is highly limited by our human existence and that may change but the laws do not.

The big bang theory violates the laws of energy and that is why those promoting that theory are now claiming nothing is actually something.

 

[jeager106]

Anything other than "I do not know" is dishonest.

Well I don't know either.

 

[Dante Writer]

Anything other than "I do not know" is dishonest.

I don't know that it is dishonest and taking a position based on what you perceive is not intentional dishonesty and just a foible of human existence.

I lean to the idea that the laws have always existed and are a force we can not understand and may never understand because our intelligence and existence is predicated by those laws.

 

[Ouroboros]

I do not tie myself to any religious beliefs or scientific theories.

Sure.

There are laws in the universe that do not change. Energy can not be created or destroyed.

That's true.

All energy came from the same source and will eventually return to that source. Our understanding of the laws is highly limited by our human existence and that may change but the laws do not.

Agree to both.

The big bang theory violates the laws of energy and that is why those promoting that theory are now claiming nothing is actually something.

I'm not a big fan of big bang theory myself, and the nothing=something thing... yeah. It's more philosophical than scientific.

 

[idav]

There is no reason to believe that a Big Bang ever occurred.

Saying the universe goes further back than the big bang is not the same as saying the big bang didn't occur.

 

[Nietzsche]

I like Dr. Kaku and watch him on T-V.
I agree with creation.
So much for my opinion worth what all opinions are worth.

The "God" Kaku is talking about here isn't the sort of being who'd waste time bothering with a human sacrifice of his "son".

 

[Shadow Wolf]

How did you manage to miss ...

“To me it is clear that we exists in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.”​

I didn't miss anything. I've watched his shows, read his books, and seen many interviews with him. I know enough to know that him talking about music and math to know the link in the OP that quotes him are not recent quotes. I know he uses the term "god" much like Einstein did, which was metaphorically and in no way is meant to be interpreted as a sign of belief in a personal deity. Even Richard Dawkins said he supposes you could find evidence of a "creator/designer," but we all know that he is an atheist (and the line is often taken out of context).

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Okay, I've read the links that were provided in the OP, and the other news articles and blog posts that mention this...some date back to early 2015, but I can find no links to any scientific papers or other works (primarily looking through Google Scholar...which is what my university library now uses...) that actually describe this supposed work by Kaku. There are no article submissions in which he lays out his evidence for public/peer review. Using various combinations of the terms primitive, tachyon, and semi-radius, as well as his name, all I see are articles such as the ones in the OP, and little else--that is, popular press and blogs.

The sources that I do find keep pointing out that both tachyons and string theory are currently theoretical with little or no accepted evidence that they are actually real...although that doesn't stop theoretical physicists from developing models using them...in the hopes that one day, eventually, verifiable evidence will be discovered, and then someone will get the Nobel in physics and/or other accolades for having "foreseen" the correct theory...

In physics, the term primitive might mean simple, or it might mean a building block, or it might be something that existed early, then changed into something else, or that only exists at very high temperatures and pressures.
The term tachyon refers to particles that can travel faster than the speed of light--these are hypothesized but have not been detected.
The term semi-radius is anyone's guess; semi mean partial, and radius refers to the distance between the center and edge of a particle or other object, such as a black hole.
What exactly the combination of terms refers to is unknown, until someone finds an actual paper that describes this...

 

[gsa]

Wow, he confirmed the existence of tachyons? Hold the press, where's the reporting on particles that move faster than light???

He's moving into Deepak territory with this. I blame a desire to sell books, get a TED Talk and/or appear as the next guest "On Being"

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I didn't miss anything.

Again, the quote reads: “To me it is clear that we exists in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.” Feel free to believe that he was talking about pizza if you find that less disturbing.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Again, the quote reads: “To me it is clear that we exists in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.” Feel free to believe that he was talking about pizza if you find that less disturbing.

And as I mentioned, even Richard Dawkins has said you probably could find evidence of a creator, but he isn't a theist. Einstein wrote of god, but of course he never meant god as it is understood in the common Western meaning. Kaku uses the term god in similar ways. He said "god is a mathematician" some time ago, and it didn't seem he was talking about any sort of god in a "normal" sense. Even from the OP article:
So does this mean that he believes in the omnipotence of God? Yes, and no. Despite his theory of an intelligence being the maker of the universe, he may also be referring to Spinosa's God, which is a sort of deitification of the laws of the universe itself. This is the kind of God that Einstein also concluded years before.
I point this out because, because Einstein has a strong influence on Kaku, and when you take in the thins he has written and said there isn't anything to really suggest he is discussing anything more than Spinoza's god.

 

[Zosimus]

Saying the universe goes further back than the big bang is not the same as saying the big bang didn't occur.

It's pretty clear that you either didn't read the article or didn't understand it.