Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.

[Alex K]

Whole forum judged by two responses? Hmm.

Yes. So far there are the good, the bad, and we're still holding auditions for the ugly.

---

Thanks to Alex K for reading (and understanding!) the post and offering pertinent comments.

He's new

I wonder whether I'll crack the 10k before I stop being new

[robvalue]

Both the responses which were so damning were humorous ones anyhow. He did the equivalent of running into someone's house and speaking for 3 hours without even saying what his name is or why he is there, and then doesn't like our shocked reaction.

[Longhorn]

Yes. So far there are the good, the bad, and we're still holding auditions for the ugly.

Don't look at me, I'm the funny but obnoxious one

[Alex K]

I did not say virtual particle pairs and physical constants were the same. I was using an analogy. The point is that virtual particle pairs are allowed to exist because they add up to zero. (I am simplifying the borrowed energy aspect but the end result is still no net gain or loss of energy.) If all possible universes exist there would be a balance of opposites adding up to no net imbalance. Assuming the ‘all possible universes’ scenario violates no conservation rules.

Then make it "behave analogously".

 
String theory in general is still hypothetical and the news from the LHC is not encouraging. But we are already very far out on the hypothetical limb, so what the hell!
 

The idea that the LHC can somehow prove or disprove superstring theory is largely hype in my opinion. If we find supersymmetry, we've found supersymmetry. Just because it historically was coinvented in the context of the superstring doesn't mean that it needs superstrings - it works just fine as a standalone. But I just brought up string compactifications as a concrete example where people have looked at the spread of parameters in a multiverse, to illustrate that such scenarios, in the examples that are known, have no need for the measured physical constants to cancel out. I'm not aware of a realistic field theory where there's a viable symmetry of taking all constants to their negative value.

A general feature of M-theory constituents is dualities. In S-duality, strong interactions in one theory are weak interactions of different particles in another. In T-duality, a small radius of a compactified dimension is equivalent to a large radius. Ultimately compactified dimensions are thought of as embodied in a Calabi-Yau manifold. (Non-techie readers, imagine hyperdimensional swiss cheese. Sort of.) The mirror symmetry idea has it that different Calabi-Yau manifolds can yield the same results. It is not results that necessarily appear in opposite forms, but the underlying reality

That's right. Those are symmetries acting on the higher dimensional space and the string states, not the physical constants in the low energy theory.

BTW, imagine a universe in which the sign of mass-energy (non-virtual) is negative instead of positive. To a resident of such a universe could the difference be noticeable?
 

It depends what you mean. In special relativity, the mass shell condition E^2 =c^2 p^2 +c^4 m^2 allows a negative energy branch. Those are the tachyons, and they would look very differently.

[pocaracas]

He's new

I wonder whether I'll crack the 10k before I stop being new

You'll never stop being new... You and Rob... Both came here well after me, so you'll always be new!

[Surgenator]

Sure. String theory is in the hypothesis stage. So you cannot claim there are 10 dimensions. You can only state it is possible our universe has 10 dimensions. It is also possible that we live in 16 or just 4 dimensions.

In your hypothetical world, you forgot to include another space dimension. Or did your god didn't exist anywhere but somehow aged.

 God is non-physical - spirit.

What is a spirit? What properties do spirits have? What can a spirit do? Most importantly, whose nether region are the answers coming from?

[snowtracks]

He can't be all that powerful, he can't even convince me he exists at all.

Even bacteria can do that.

It's a fallacy to mistake God's exercise of power as a measurable of available power; His exercise of that power is subject to His choice. Your condition is only temporary ---- timing is everything.

[nihilistcat]

Ahhh .... science doesn't have an answer. LOL, so let's just make shit up, because as we all know, bullshit is better than admitting we don't know. I mean, what would we do without bullshit anyway? Our political system would have to be scrapped, churches bulldozed, we'd have to admit that superman is a myth and kryptonite doesn't really exist, and poor Sponge Bob would have to go away (that will really tick my little niece off) 

[robvalue]

Science doesn't know every answer, so let's write "goddidit" over every question it hasn't yet answered. As science begins to answer those questions, we hastily erase our "goddidit" and instead write it on another question that is thrown up. Nothing has been learnt or explained, and "truths" have been shown to be false time and again, but no matter, we still have plenty more to cling to.

What kind of belief system is that? It is literally replacing the intellectually honest "We don't know yet" with "Whatever I would like it to be until such time it is proved wrong". Argument from ignorance. We need harsh penalties, 5 years imprisonment for each argument from ignorance. I have some friends in high places, I think I can swing it.

[Angrboda]

He can't be all that powerful, he can't even convince me he exists at all.

Even bacteria can do that.

It's a fallacy to mistake God's exercise of power as a measurable of available power; His exercise of that power is subject to His choice. Your condition is only temporary ---- timing is everything.

You don't know what a fallacy is. Maybe what you say is true. Maybe it's not.

The argument from non-belief is not so easily brushed aside. Rob left out the requirement that God wants a relationship with us.