Date: August 22, 2010
Title: The Sound of Strings: An Idea of Design
Podcaster: Micol Christopher and Matthew Graham
Description: Matthew Graham will describe some of the basics of string theory and provide his own insight into the creationist/science discourse.
Bio: Micol Christopher is a professor of astronomy at Mt. San Antonio College, a two-year school in Walnut, California, about 30 miles east of downtown Los Angeles.
Matthew Graham is one of Micol Christopher’s astronomy students.
Today’s sponsor: This episode of “365 Days of Astronomy” is sponsored by — no one. We still need sponsors for many days in 2010, so please consider sponsoring a day or two. Just click on the “Donate” button on the lower left side of this webpage, or contact us at signup@365daysofastronomy.org.
Transcript:
The Sound of Strings: An Idea of Design
Micol: Hi! My name is Micol Christopher, and I am a professor of astronomy at Mt. San Antonio College, a two-year school in Walnut, California, about 30 miles east of downtown Los Angeles. As part of their work last semester, students in my introductory astronomy classes have been reading and reporting on podcasts from the 365 Days of Astronomy website. Their culminating activity was to write their own podcast on any topic in astronomy that interested them. What you will hear today is the podcast from one of my students, Matthew Graham, who will describe some of the basics of string theory and provide his own insight into the creationist/science discourse. Hope you will enjoy!
Matthew: For the past forty years or so, there has been a lot of controversy surrounding the extremely bold idea that the universe is not made of particles or single points of matter, but rather these extremely tiny little vibrating strings. The first person to initially try and push this idea, the idea that these ridiculously small vibrating strings were actually at the heart of every molecule and atom in our universe, was Leonard Susskind, a theoretical physicist. Unfortunately, he was not met with much approval and the idea of “String Theory” was left by the wayside.
Decades later and we are just now beginning to scratch the surface of what Susskind had first envisioned in the early 70’s. To try and sum it up, String Theory states that what we perceive to be the smallest particles in the universe are actually nowhere near such a title and that these infinitesimally small strings, residing somewhere around 10-33 centimeters in length, resonate at specific frequencies that cause them to become one thing or another; say a proton or an electron.
The truly great thing about this theory is that it allows for all four of the fundamental forms of energy in our universe to work in symmetry, making sense on both the smallest and largest scales. Up until the idea of String Theory was introduced, there was no way of resolving the differences between the theories of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
An example of these differences takes place inside the workings of a Black Hole. See, General Relativity applies to things on the very large, cosmic scale; Quantum Mechanics to the extremely small, molecular level. The problem? Which laws apply to the inside of a Black Hole: considering that it is both an extreme demonstration of gravity concerning something massively large, and therefore a place for Relativity, condensed to a very, very small scale, which would call for Quantum Mechanics? When trying to apply both equations the functions simply breakdown and give answers that don’t make sense. To put it plainly: you cannot have two conflicting sets of laws governing one universe.
String theory fixes this problem, providing a mathematical solution to unite all four forms of energy: Electromagnetism, the Strong Nuclear Force, Weak Nuclear Force, and Gravity. However, the question then becomes “is it really science?” The inherent problem in dealing with something so small is that we cannot see it, and therefore cannot test it. The theory is “safe,” as any scientist would put it. Though strings have come a long way, most recently being dubbed “M” Theory by renowned physicist Edward Witten, they cannot answer some fundamental questions: such as the beginning of the universe.
Now, without stretching your brains too far, understand that String Theory, or M Theory, accounts for the existence of multiple dimensions. Yes, I mean different dimensions of existence, ones that we cannot perceive, and up to 11 of them in fact. These higher dimensions of existence essentially float next to each other, termed “branes,” and never touch. Or do they? One idea is that two branes collided at some point, causing what we call the Big Bang, and quite possibly continue to collide, creating multiple “pocket universes.” These “pocket universes” would literally exist right next to, or even on top of each other, and never realize it. Crazy right?
Well, let us take a look at what this could mean: that we exist, all matter and life as we know it, because we were lucky enough to be in the universe with just the right amount of everything in just the right way at just the right time. Or to put it in terms of String Theory: that everything as we know it exists because each of these strings is vibrating at just the right frequency, like the strings of an orchestra, to provide for our existence. A stretch? Maybe.
Considering that a single pinhead of DNA contains more information than can be stored in a stack of encyclopedias from the Earth to the Moon over 500 times, is it really all just an accident? Or what if in the beginning there was a voice, much like a composer directing that orchestra, and that voice spoke in very distinct ways so as to create very specific things in just the right way, at just the right time, in just the right place? The problem regresses back to the argument “what created the universe?” Well, the Jews called him Yaweh, you might know Him better as God. But of course this brings us to the inevitable question: then what created God?
This is a logical retort, but only in so far as I can throw a tank. If all matter as we know it is bound by certain laws, say the Law of Conservation of Energy in that nothing can come from nothing, then would not there have to be something outside these laws which was in place in order to create this “something?” Some scientists tend to believe that Creationists are looking for a “god of the gaps,” as they denote it. This is simply not true.
Creationists propose that all science can do, and has ever done, is seek to understand how God works. They do not say, “This is how it happened,” rather that, “Oh, this is how God makes it work.” We do not want to stop science; we simply want to be so bold as to say what science is looking at. What proof do you need of the painter besides the painting itself?
Micol: I hope that you have enjoyed this podcast from Matthew. On September 8th you will hear from 3 more of my students as they share their own personal encounters with the night sky and all its wonders. Thanks! Have a great day!
End of podcast:
365 Days of Astronomy
=====================
The 365 Days of Astronomy Podcast is produced by the Astrosphere New Media Association. Audio post-production by Preston Gibson. Bandwidth donated by libsyn.com and wizzard media. Web design by Clockwork Active Media Systems. You may reproduce and distribute this audio for non-commercial purposes. Please consider supporting the podcast with a few dollars (or Euros!). Visit us on the web at 365DaysOfAstronomy.org or email us at info@365DaysOfAstronomy.org. Until tomorrow…goodbye.
If you find it necessary to permit creationism into “365 Days of Astronomy”, I will find it necessary to spend my time listening to other podcasts in its stead.
This episode was disgusting. My support for the podcast just ended. It would be better off being off the air if it is going to be used to push the most anti-scientific garbage out there.
This was a huge mistake, it had no business being on a science site.
It points out why I hate creationists so much, they have to put their dark ages ideas into every sphere they can.
A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.
-Alexander Pope
Matthew Graham should drink more deeply of that spring before ever again voicing his thoughts in public, and knock back a chaser of humility too while he’s at it. As for the editors of 365 Days of Astronomy, fall to your knees in shame before the Flying Spaghetti Monster and beg forgiveness, for you have sinned against your listeners’ faith in your rationalism.
Dear BG,
I am sincerely sorry that you took offense in today’s podcast. I just reviewed the episode, and while the show does, in the final 3 paragraphs, mention creationism in the original sense – that God is the original cause (painter) of the universe – it does not contradict science by claiming a young earth or anything similarly contradictory to scientific evidence. The author, in discussing science through the majority of the episode stays factual, and only in discussing the source of the universe at the end does he gives a personal opinion, which is all any of us can do. Had he expressed an atheist view point, his show would also have been allowed to air. Religion in and of itself is not anti-scientific, and many scientists hold deep religious convictions.
365 Days of Astronomy is a show that allows for opinion, poetry and personal stories, as well as discussions of pure science. Allowing a student to discuss very briefly at the end of an essay how he sees God as the first cause is within the mission of the show.
While I am sorry that you were offended, this episode is not something I will apologize for nor is their anything in it for me to refute. We live in a culture that has many voices, and our show is a place where scientifically accurate voices can express their passions safely. This student has found a way to combine science and religion in his life, and that’s okay. Not everyone makes that choice, and other voices with other opinions are also welcome on our feed as long as, like this student, their science is accurate and their opinions don’t get in the way of evidence-based science.
Cheers,
Pamela
I guess I take nuanced view of this. I think it is wholly inappropriate to invoke God as an answer to any astronomical question. It is the antithesis of what we do as scientists. While I understand that many professional scientists are religious, they keep their religion out of their science. This podcaster used a scientific trojan horse to insert their own personal, unfounded and unscientific view into a science podcast and I think it was a mistake to do so.
With that said, I don’t understand the overreaction skeptics have to these sorts of statements. Why can’t you just disagree? You always have to inject this scorched-earth NEVER AGAIN BS. Get over yourself. I suspect you can handle 90 seconds of material you strongly disagree with. I can.
M.
I can certainly handle it, but really it doesn’t need yet another outlet, I think creationist propaganda has plenty of outlets.
Nor does it need any legitimacy lent to it by being presented on a science site.
The whole episode was a one big long argument that everything is so complex and hard to understand that god must have done it. Peppered with a number of old, well discredited creationism arguments (argument from design, fine tuning, anthropic arguments, gaps, laws of thermodynamics, etc). It had no business being presented here (in my opinion, I know it is Ms. Gay’s site).
And I certainly will not support more accommodation, teach the controversy, all ideas are valid, false balance and equivalency. That sort of thinking has done enough damage, heck look at the Texas school boards fights we have to go through every so often and that is being repeated across the country, precisely because of these sorts of creationist arguments are give credence, publicity, voice and legitimacy.
Ms. Gay could have said there was a mistake made, but instead she choose to defend it by saying that all any of us can do is offer our personal opinion on the origin of the universe. I think I’ll support sites that recognize that there is more to trying to determine the origin of our universe than personal opinion.
“Religion in and of itself is not anti-scientific”… really?
If it is through science that we understand the works of god then science becomes a branch of theology, at its service. Do we seek truth, following the rainbow wherever it leads, or are we merely looking for the detail to fill in the gap between what we know as provable fact and what we’ve inherited from the beliefs of our ancient ancestors? This episode does the latter, those which preceded it (all those I’ve heard, at least) do the former. I’ve no quarrel with the prominence of religious imagery and allegory in astronomy—gods are the language of the night sky—and I enjoy learning about traditional interpretations of the universe in a historical or anthropological context, but when house room is given to espousing a theological solution as valid and rational then you lose my confidence entirely.
It sures seems like this was an attempt to get people to listen to what was porported to be an audio essay concerning string theory simply to then spring the little trap of preaching about creationism. Nice try but rather transparent young man. Nothing in the essay or in your “argument” supports or justifies your conclusion. As for it being his right to express his opinion Pamela, that’s not really what science does. I think you are projecting your own religious preconceptions into the discussion rather than moderating the scientific validy of this attempt at a science podcast.
I have enjoyed reading the fairly passionate discussion that this podcast has generated. As Matthew Graham’s professor, I have had many discussions with him about his view of creationism. I have found him to be a religious but also scientific young man who is trying to incorporate what he is learning in an introductory astronomy class into his worldview.
I understand the concern that some readers may have about the injection of “creationism” onto this website although I personally agree with Pamela’s views that Matthew did not fall back on any of the traditional creationist arguments (young Earth, etc.) that scientists have the most difficulty with. I do, however, take exception with the idea that this podcast was attempting to sneak creationism into the discussion. My introduction to the podcast (as well as the description of the podcast) both mentioned that Matthew would be sharing his own views on the science/creationist discourse, so it should not have come as that much of a surprise.
I appreciate Pamela’s defense of this podcast, but to those who were offended or bothered by it, I hope that you will not abandon this podcast site – it is the nature of any podcast that allows for individual expression that we may not always agree with everything, but that’s why there’s a new podcast each day!
First and foremost I would like to sincerely apologize to everyone that was offended by the content of my podcast as it was not in any way my intention. I understand why it may rub some people the wrong way but please understand that I’m just exploring new ideas and was in no way trying to make some bold statement about how God is the answer to everything. I thought I made it clear that I would never expect science to reach some sort of dead end in which God must be the answer, rather that the idea that science is explaining the idea of a creator or designer the further it delves (in my very humble opinion) is interesting to me but obviously in no way concrete science. This in no way means that it is a “personal” God, I’d like to add, rather that it is simply something with purpose, if only the most funddamental (i.e. spawing matter). Once again this is just something I put together out of interest and never expected some sort of “oh man this kid is a genius I love his ideas!” response.
@BG Seriously, I am very sorry to have offended you with my podcast and I completely understand, though I would hope you wouldn’t hold my transgressions against this website and it’s affiliates.
@coconino I took your words to heart, please don’t think I am some ignorant kid stuck in his ways. I am hurt that my podcast ignited such a heated response but all of my friends are devout atheists so I am used to the typical response of shun and scold. Like I said to BG, I am very sorry to have offended you and hope you would not hold this against this website as they were only being “fair,” though I’m sure given the content even that is debatable (considering the response it has gotten). Also I in no way was trying to subvert science to the will of theology, rather that theology should fall in line with science. I will include my email at the bottom of this post and would hope that anyone offended by my podcast’s content would be willing to discuss their objections, or just flat out insult me, personally (and believe me I have no problem with either).
@Mark Thyme I am very sorry that you think the ideas I concluded with were in no way grounded in any kind of empirical evidence. If I am that out of line and you would be so willing as to correct me on the issue please contact me at the email I have provided at the end of this post.
@michael I in no way intended to “trojan horse” any unfounded or unscientific ideas into my podcast, as “An Idea of Design” is included in the title. I understand your objection and if it was honestly my mistake made in ignorance I apologize. I sincerely thank you for your understanding in being able to just dismiss and disagree with my beliefs without scorning the producers of this website as well.
Please understand I am in no way stuck in my beliefs or think I have any answers to anything, rather that I am curious and always interested in hearing and learning any new ideas that challenge or flat out destroy any opinions or arguments I am capable of presenting. If you only want to email me to burn me alive, feel free and know that I will not respond to or bother you if you don’t want or expect a response.
Once again I sincerely apologize for the content of the podcast and hope that everyone understands that I was just expressing my opinion at the end of what I designed to be a mostly educational podcast. As this seems to have been out of line I have gladly “knocked back a chaser of humility” and will be more mindful when voicing such ideas as these around the community.
Respectfully,
MCGraham
my mistake, forgot to include the email:
mcgraham.1986@gmail.com
@Matthew Graham:
I appreciate your reply a great deal and I too apologize to you for getting so bent out of shape. I certainly didn’t mean to attack you personally as I feel everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and opinions.
While I still think there was an editorial error in judgment in posting the episode, I understand where you are coming from and as I said, I appreciate your more than gracious reply.
Mathew,
Good call in responding!
I personnaly will refrain from joining in the apology-fest. I also am not interested in repsonding privately to your email. Here’s why. You are trying to “do science” or so I assume. Science is, by its nature a public event. You SHOULD be held up to public scrutiny and criticism. That, oddly enough, is what makes it fun, challenging and what pushes science forward. And I think you just showed a lot of character in standing up to all of us!
So, if I were your teacher or the moderator of the website, I would prioritize helping you to learn to use this sometimes harsh process.
My main point in response to your (sub)note to me is that some of your thinking is irrational. For example this quote: “that everything as we know it exists because each of these strings is vibrating at just the right frequency, like the strings of an orchestra, to provide for our existence.” I would ask what makes you think the universe was designed to provide for your existence? Hominids sure can be arrogant! Is it not simply the case that we would not be asking any questions or making statements if we were were not here? And we would not be here if conditions did not exactly allow for us to be here? That doesn’t require gods or magical answers. Also – is not a basic premise of string theory that there are multiple universes and so everything did NOT necessarily start with the Big Bang (negating your entire Voice of Yehweh? And tell me how it is any different at all to nullify the idea of a 6 thousand year old Earth while accepting the Breath Upon The Water as the cause of existence? Is your god really too weak to alternately create either of these subterfuges effortlessly? ‘Cause if he is you might need a new and better god. These are some of the things your instructor, the listeners and Pamela should be encouraging you to explore rather than maternalistically rushing to defend your ego (or her own). Welcome to reality, I think you will enjoy the ride if you pay your dues!
Next? Scientology?
Dear Matthew,
Please don’t apologize for voicing your views. This podcast is a bit of public forum. We don’t live in a closed country in which anyone expressing religious ideas is summarily executed (only academically, in our culture). The rest of you who attacked him out of hand, if God really doesn’t exist, then why get so bent out of shape? The religious side certainly has to listen to the atheistic arguments, and are expected to take it like properly chastened little school boys and girls. Why can’t you give the same hearing to the Christian side.
Matthew, thank you for your courage in standing up for your views!
@Laura and others: OK, I’m sorry. I was under wrong impression that this is supposed to be podcast promoting astronomy and science through all the knowledge gathered through the ages. Complicated things explained and presented to the non-scientific people like me, through the evidence based work. But since it’s not, we can in the same manner introduce opinions about how astrology works, how ETs make crop circles, the ways aliens obduct us and so on. This is not for me. I’ll go look for the content elswhere. I’m sorry again and thanks for all the free episodes you’ve provided so far.
The Christian side? There is no “Christian side” of science. There is just science. The fact that religious people see science as the “them” side of an “us vs. them” situation is one of the most depressing aspects of this silly so-called debate.
Oh, and momos, we’ve had, what, 700 shows so far and something like 2 brief mentions of religion. The evidence does not support your sarcasm.
@Higginbotham
Hear out the christian side?
“Goddidit”
There. We’re done. That was very enlightening.
I for one am sick of religious people trying to force their “side” on everyone. Again, I’ll just point out the Texas school board problems as an example, there are obviously others.
As if the thousands of churches, thousands of hours of television, thousands of hours of radio, millions of tax free dollars donated to religions institutions, and the thousands of christian politicians in elected office at every level were not enough for you christians, you are all so persecuted by even hearing the “atheist” side (or as we call it, science). Boo hoo, cry me a river.
I must admit that I was both flabbergasted and uncomfortable after having heard this episode.
I am fully aware of Dr. Gay’s faith and, as I understand it, she maintains Gould’s “non overlapping magisteria” philosophy. It does not match my world view but it is one of the ‘best’ ways of reconciling science and religion with its inherent contradictions.
What disgusted me most about this episode was the way that Creationism was sneaked in. It all started with a short introduction to String Theory and mentioning the Multiverse hypothesis and then in a complete non-sequitur. That was not the only fallacy I detected with the most notable being the “argument from ignorance” (it sounded like something that Deepak Chopra would say: “Quantum Theory is so complicated to understand that it must have been God).
In the last three paragraphs, I counted following old Creationist claims: 1) “DNA is a code”, 2) life cannot just be an accident, 3) nature/life is directed like an orchestra, 4) 2nd law of thermodynamics, 5) a painting requires a painting, and of course 6) the fine-tuning argument. All of these claims are old and have been debunked by people much better able to make their points than I am. If necessary, I could provide links, but a quick web search should do it too.
What I do want to understand is the following. Let me humour you, and assume that a transcending divine entity did indeed create the universe, ‘fine tune’ the physical constants and set all in motion. So far it is a deistic view. This is something we cannot ever prove or disprove (as opposed to, e.g. evolution by natural selection, which many creationists do not accept). How does one get from the “Ultimate Architect” to one specific religious view, such as the Christian god?
Anybody who knows a little bit about astronomy knows how vast the universe is and how tiny the habitable zone is. Life for humans is pretty much the lowest 2 meters above the surface of the planet, minus the oceans, minus the arctic/tundric regions, minus the deserts, minus the higher mountain ranges. One day we may indeed live on other moons and planets, but this does not change the fact that the universe is huge and deadly. If indeed the whole Cosmos was merely created for the benefit of mankind, would that not imply the architect to be infinitely inefficient? (*)
I have enjoyed this podcast a lot and I hope that in future the focus stays on Science. In my opinion, personal views on the existence or non-existence of one or more specific gods, has no place in a science based podcast.
Cheers from Switzerland, Sandro