There is a popular notion that theoretical physics can be included in the domain of "science".

In actuality, it is more porperly described as "science fiction" that happens to be predominantly written in the very simple language of mathematics rather than natural language.

That is why string theory, in common with quantum loop gravity and the various other (usually mutually exclusive) "Theories of Everything are indeed must not be taken too seriously.

Any of these fictional models that might happen to be testable have, of course, the opportunity to one day become "science" and become part of physical theory within that domain.

They have value but are not science.

There is thus an important distinction to be made between theoretical physics and physical theory.

The former is mathematical science fiction.

The latter comprises our best understanding of the ways of our universe within an evidential framework.

An example is he popular notion of additional spatial dimensions that has been kicking around in science fictions, both in mathematics and natural language, for decades that we need to take care. Because there is, as yet, not a single shred of hard evidence for the existence of more than the three spatial and one temporal dimension that we observe.

The latest "flavour of the month" of 11 spatial dimensions favoured by string theorists, is a good example. They have no more real tangibility than the notions of Buddha or Jehovah, or hobgoblins, for that matter.

Like it or not, the unromantic idea of just the 3 dimensions we perceive is for the present, anyway, the only scientific reality.

On the other hand, while there is no direct scientific evidence for the existence of a multiverse, such a feature does seem to arise rather naturally from the overall empirical picture that we have built up of "the way things work". It is also more philosophically satisfying inasmuch as "bubble universes" overcome problems such as "what came before the big bang?"

The apparent "fine tuning" of physical constants that seem to uniquely permit life, especially when linked into the further "downstream" characteristics provided by the relative and timely abundances of the chemical elements and their compounds (as described in chapter 11 of "Unusual Perspectives") provide quite compelling evidence for the future direction of the process. A direction which is very compatible with a particular multiverse model.

"Unusual Perspectives" is available for free download from the eponymous website.

CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE: ‘THE BIG BANG’
The creation of the universe is explained by astrophysicists in a widely
accepted phenomenon, popularly known as the ‘Big Bang’. It is supported by
observational and experimental data gathered by astronomers and
astrophysicists for decades. According to the ‘Big Bang’, the whole universe
was initially one big mass (Primary Nebula). Then there was a ‘Big Bang’
(Secondary Separation) which resulted in the formation of Galaxies. These
then divided to form stars, planets, the sun, the moon, etc. The origin of the
universe was unique and the probability of it occurring by ‘chance’ is zero.
The Qur’aan contains the following verse, regarding the origin of the
universe: “Do not the Unbelievers see That the heavens and the earth
Were joined together (as one Unit of Creation), before We clove them
asunder?” [Al-Qur’aan 21:30]
The striking congruence between the Qur’aanic verse and the ‘Big Bang’ is
inescapable! How could a book, which first appeared in the deserts of Arabia
1400 years ago, contain this profound scientific truth?
THERE WAS AN INITIAL GASEOUS MASS BEFORE THE
CREATION OF GALAXIES
Scientists say that before the galaxies in the universe were formed, celestial
matter was initially in the form of gaseous matter. In short, huge gaseous
matter or clouds were present before the formation of the galaxies. To
describe initial celestial matter, the word ‘smoke’ is more appropriate than
gas. The following Qur’aanic verse refers to this state of the universe by the
word dhukhan which means smoke.
“Moreover, He Comprehended In His design the sky, And it had been
(as) smoke: He said to it And to the earth: ‘Come ye together, Willingly
or unwillingly.’ They said: ‘We do come (Together), in willing
obedience.’” [Al-Qur’aan 41:11]
Again, this fact is a corollary to the ‘Big Bang’ and was not known to the
Arabs during the time of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). What then, could have
been the source of this knowledge?
THE SPHERICAL SHAPE OF THE EARTH
In early times, people believed that the earth is flat. For centuries, men were
afraid to venture out too far, lest they should fall off the edge. Sir Francis
Drake was the first person who proved that the earth is spherical when he
sailed around it in 1597. Consider the following Qur’aanic verse regarding
the alternation of day and night: “Seest thou not that Allah merges Night
into Day And He merges Day into Night?” [Al-Qur’aan 31:29]
Merging here means that the night slowly and gradually changes to day and
vice versa. This phenomenon can only take place if the earth is spherical. If
the earth was flat, there would have been a sudden change from night to day
and from day to night.
The following verse also alludes to the spherical shape of the earth: “He
created the heavens And the earth In true (proportions): He makes the
Night Overlap the Day, and the Day Overlap the Night.” [Al-Qur’aan
39:5]
The Arabic word used here is Kawwara meaning ‘to overlap’ or ‘to coil’– the
way a turban is wound around the head. The overlapping or coiling of the day
and night can only take place if the earth is spherical.
The earth is not exactly round like a ball, but geo-spherical i.e. it is flattened
at the poles. The following verse contains a description of the earth’s shape:
“And the earth, moreover, Hath He made egg shaped.” 2 [Al-Qur’aan
79:30]
The Arabic word for egg here is dahaha, which means an ostrich-egg. The
shape of an ostrich-egg resembles the geo-spherical shape of the earth. Thus
the Qur’aan correctly describes the shape of the earth, though the prevalent
notion when the Qur’aan was revealed was that the earth is flat.
THE LIGHT OF THE MOON IS REFLECTED LIGHT
It was believed by earlier civilizations that the moon emanates its own light.
Science now tells us that the light of the moon is reflected light. However this
fact was mentioned in the Qur’aan 1,400 years ago in the following verse:.
“Blessed is He Who made Constellations in the skies, And placed therein
a Lamp And a Moon giving light.” [Al-Qur’aan 25:61]
The Arabic word for the sun in the Qur’aan, is shams. It is referred to as
siraaj, which means a ‘torch’ or as wahhaaj which means ‘a blazing lamp’ or
as diya which means ‘shining glory’. All three descriptions are appropriate to
the sun, since it generates intense heat and light by its internal combustion.
The Arabic word for the moon is qamar and it is described in the Qur’aan as
muneer, which is a body that gives nur i.e. light. Again, the Qur’aanic description matches perfectly with the true nature of the moon, which does
not give off light itself and is an inert body that reflects the light of the sun.
Not once in the Qur’aan, is the moon mentioned as siraaj, wahhaaj or diya or
the sun as nur or muneer. This implies that the Qur’aan recognizes the
difference between the nature of sunlight and moonlight Consider the following verses related to the nature of light from the sun and
the moon: “It is He who made the sun To be a shining glory And the
moon to be a light (Of beauty).” [Al-Qur’aan 10:5]
“See ye not How Allah has created The seven heavens One above
another, “And made the moon A light in their midst, and made the sun
As a (Glorious) Lamp?” [Al-Qur’aan 71:15-16]