By Mathew Goldstein
String theory posits that the particles and forces that physicists detect using machines are vibrating, string shaped units of energy embedded in a universe that is multi-dimensional. Like most of science, this theory is non-intuitive and counter-intuitive to us. Not in a million years would any philosopher, or theologian, or science fiction author, have invented string theory by reasoning primarily from their intuition, instead of from following the empirical evidence. It can be difficult, even for the scientists themselves, but especially for non-scientists like me, to grasp the concept. The pervasively non-intuitive and counter-intuitive quality of modern theories regarding how our universe functions is important. This tells us that we must rely on empirical evidence, and the consensus of experts when possible, not on our intuition, because our ignorant intuition is incompetent and more likely to be a counter-productive obstacle than a productive tool for understanding.
String theory posits that the particles and forces that physicists detect using machines are vibrating, string shaped units of energy embedded in a universe that is multi-dimensional. Like most of science, this theory is non-intuitive and counter-intuitive to us. Not in a million years would any philosopher, or theologian, or science fiction author, have invented string theory by reasoning primarily from their intuition, instead of from following the empirical evidence. It can be difficult, even for the scientists themselves, but especially for non-scientists like me, to grasp the concept. The pervasively non-intuitive and counter-intuitive quality of modern theories regarding how our universe functions is important. This tells us that we must rely on empirical evidence, and the consensus of experts when possible, not on our intuition, because our ignorant intuition is incompetent and more likely to be a counter-productive obstacle than a productive tool for understanding.
Electrons have a property called spin that either has the same, or opposite, direction as the direction that the electron travels. According to string theory, the electron spin can flip directions in the presence of a strong gravitational field and magnetic field, such as near the event horizon of a black hole. Theorists have concluded that in some contexts a temperature gradient can substitute for the gravitational field.
Recently, several IBM scientists, interested in exploring the possibility of deploying new types of materials for building future electronic devices for their employer, decided to test if they could observe a change in behavior of electrons in a semimetal that they were studying. Semimetals are intermediate between conductive metals and semiconductors. If string theory is true then a temperature gradient and strong magnetic field applied to the semimetal will break the spin symmetry conservation property of the electrons residing in the semimetal and produce a measureable current. The IBM scientists succeeded in verifying this prediction, see http://m.ibm.com/https/www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2017/07/scientists-observe-gravitational-anomaly-on-earth Scientists Observe Gravitational Anomaly on Earth.
So what is the point of this post? String theory, like most of modern knowledge about how the universe functions, is relevant to the theism versus atheism disagreement. String theory, like all physics, chemistry, biology, etc., is thoroughly naturalistic. String theory translates into mathematical equations that express the logic of physical, material, mechanical processes. All of modern knowledge regarding how our universe functions is derived from naturalistic methods and reaches conclusions that are naturalistic.
Humanity did not begin the pursuit for knowledge preferring naturalistic methods and explanations. We got pulled towards naturalism despite a long standing preference for supernaturalism. This distinction is not binary, it is a continuum, and there is no measuring device. Naturalism imposes constraints that reduces the options available to explain and people, wanting explanation, tend to consider the naturalism constraint to be too restrictive. Yet the naturalism versus supernaturalism contest outcome lopsidedly favors naturalism, it is not a close call. Time and time again, at all levels of focus from the smallest detail to the largest generality, there is opportunity for either more naturalistic oriented or more supernaturalistic oriented methods to be productive, and for either naturalistic favoring or supernaturalistic favoring conclusions to be successful. Unrelentingly, over and over again, only the more naturalistic oriented methods are productive and only the naturalistic favoring conclusions are successful.
Several hundred years ago it was reasonable for well educated adults to endorse supernaturalism. Science eventually abandoned supernaturalism because of its track record of total failure. Today, theists, and non-atheist agnostics also, are downplaying, ignoring, and disregarding the pervasiveness, consistency, and diversity of the evidence for naturalism. Many agnostics and theists who can be very good at respecting and following the empirical evidence in their professional and non-professional lives, nevertheless fail, apparently unwittingly, to apply that same rational standard to this question. If they did apply the same rational standard of attending to the overall available evidence, as they otherwise routinely do every day, instead of myopically focusing narrowly on lack of knowledge trivialities and mysteries, and carefully avoided the mistake of placing personal preference or intuition over evidence, then they would be atheists.
