This area of science is beyond my level of comprehension. It is an area I have wondered about but never in any great depth. For me, the string theory is just another theory in a long line of them with other theories joining them along the way. I do question why such theories are used when absolute proof is not available. That and to why the theory is held in seemingly high regard whereas using a theory in another avenue might be instantly dismissed or dare say irrelevant. Then, there lies why the flare up of personality prickles; when one theory is challenged, or another pops up that deflects from one set in motion hundreds of years ago?
Has science come no more forward in all those years to establish the proof of existence of a theory? It seems it has not judging by the outcry and shaking of scientific papers.
On this article, I read it very briefly, it mentioned the negative state
Is it possible to test the landscape idea through observation?
One idea is to look for signs that space is negatively curved, meaning the geometry of space-time is saddle-shaped as opposed to flat or like the surface of a sphere. It's a long shot but not as unlikely as I previously thought. Inflation tells us that our observable universe likely began in a different vacuum state, that decayed into our current vacuum state. It's hard to believe that's the whole story. It seems more probable that our universe began in some other vacuum state with a much higher cosmological constant, and that the history of the multiverse is a series of quantum tunnelling events from one vacuum to another. If our universe came out of another, it must be negatively curved, and we might see evidence of that today on the largest scales of the cosmic microwave background. So the landscape, at least in principle, is testable.
I see this positive and negative states repeated. Like maths, the two components used are plus and minus. The point being why stick just to those two states and apply everything on them? Is not equal or zero, division and multiplication also an applied state in both mathematics as well as this physic science? If there are six such states isn't it reasonable to suspect there to be more?
With things around either in a state of permanent flux or changing slowly, adapting to what the influences are surrounding it. Can the law of nature be answered. Even should it given by its own nature it is changeable, no mathematical formulae can adapt or apply to something that is altering its own pattern?
Back to the article, I also do believe something is missing or is being missed. Likewise I do not believe there is an answer to the theory of everything or can it be answered. Basing that on the use of rigid inflexible parameters already used. Instead of looking to the stars for answers that in all probability are not there. Why not look a little closer to home and understand what is here before gazing upward?
