Can we/you number the amount of quantum particles in the universe...?

[joshua 1 9]

Well, they say opinions are like bums, everyone’s got one, and some stink worse than others.

Is that what the Atheists say?

 

[HitchSlap]

Is that what the Atheists say?

Well, we tend to have the skills necessary to determine reality from hokum.

 

[makeajoyfulnoise100]

No. M-theory was proposed by Ed Witten as a 'superset' of String Theory, which has fundamental particles represented by one-dimensional 'strings' in a (typically) ten dimensional universe. It isn't Hawking's, although he has said he thinks it's only viable candidate for a TOE (Theory Of Everything).

Ah ok. What is the basis of a ten-dimensional universe?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Ah ok. What is the basis of a ten-dimensional universe?

I don't understand what you're asking - 'basis' in what sense?

String theory arose from the observation of an uncanny resemblance in the mathematics describing the behaviour of certain subatomic particles to the mathematics describing vibrating strings. It has a complex and chequered history, which continues to develop, but the 10 dimensional form is the most commonly accepted version these days. The additional spatial dimensions are 'curled up' at length scales far smaller than sub-atomic particles. A major criticism of its utility is that the properties of spacetime depend on exactly how those extra dimensions are curled up - giving a possible 10^500 different variations of spacetime, of which ours is just one. On the other hand, this provides proponents of certain kinds of multiverse a means by which the appearance of fine-tuning can be addressed via the (Weak) Anthropic Principle.

 

[makeajoyfulnoise100]

I don't understand what you're asking - 'basis' in what sense?

String theory arose from the observation of an uncanny resemblance in the mathematics describing the behaviour of certain subatomic particles to the mathematics describing vibrating strings. It has a complex and chequered history, which continues to develop, but the 10 dimensional form is the most commonly accepted version these days. The additional spatial dimensions are 'curled up' at length scales far smaller than sub-atomic particles. A major criticism of its utility is that the properties of spacetime depend on exactly how those extra dimensions are curled up - giving a possible 10^500 different variations of spacetime, of which ours is just one. On the other hand, this provides proponents of certain kinds of multiverse a means by which the appearance of fine-tuning can be addressed via the (Weak) Anthropic Principle.

Ah ok. Fascinating. Thank you

 

[faroukfarouk]

Ah ok. Fascinating. Thank you

Also Hebrews 11.12:

"Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable."

 

[FredVB]

Science does not deal with the question of where the laws come from. Although they do talk about when TIME began or when TIME became a part of the Universe.

If you travel out far away from everything in the Universe, you can never get lower than a minimum of just 2.7 Kelvin or -270.45 Celsius. This is the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation, which permeates the entire Universe. In space? It's as cold as it can get.

If time began, randomness cannot be credited with that. The Creator is explanation for how time began.

 

[joshua 1 9]

If time began, randomness cannot be credited with that. The Creator is explanation for how time began.

Gerald Schroeder is the expert of time and when time began. He has studied Physics and Kabbalah.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Well, we tend to have the skills necessary to determine reality from hokum.

Great, I have made this very easy for you. I give you the verses in the Bible and I give you the current Science that pertains to those verses. Now show me your "hokum". Show me where Science proves the Bible wrong. Show me any conflict or contradiction between the Bible and Science.

If you think I can not prove the Bible to be 100% accurate and true that is fine. The issue here is you can not come up with anything to show that the Bible is not true. Other then what YOU call "hokum". Did you forget already about what I taught you about how YOU are guilty of what you accuse others of? Your attempt to refute my evidence is little more then "hokum" by your own admission.

 

[Neogaia777]

I find it it ironic that, they won't believe in other dimensional beings, even though, and yet, all the math they depend on doesn't work without the proposed reality and existence of other dimensions...

God Bless!

 

[Radrook]

Any attempt to accurately number things in a universe whose true size we don't really know would be speculation by default.

 

[Neogaia777]

Any attempt to accurately number things in a universe whose true size we don't really know would be speculation by default.

Well, I think the title question just shows the kind of level of math God is dealing with and knows... Including those other dimensions as well...

A grain of sand on the seashore, does not even do it justice, in my opinion... I do not know what earthly example would...?

 

[Neogaia777]

Well, I think the title question just shows the kind of level of math God is dealing with and knows... Including those other dimensions as well...

A grain of sand on the seashore, does not even do it justice, in my opinion... I do not know what earthly example would...?

And even that level of math, with God, is like child's basic addition/subtraction tables, compared to what he knows about math, things we just don't know, he thinks in those those kind of numbers and the seeming complexity of them to us, rather easily...

From the small to the large he knows the unified, and unified theories, or actually, rules, laws, and behaviors of all, all based on high knowledge of math...

 

[durangodawood]

If time began, randomness cannot be credited with that. The Creator is explanation for how time began.

Why does it have to be either randomness or a creator?

Why are those the only 2 options?

 

[HitchSlap]

Great, I have made this very easy for you. I give you the verses in the Bible and I give you the current Science that pertains to those verses. Now show me your "hokum". Show me where Science proves the Bible wrong. Show me any conflict or contradiction between the Bible and Science.

If you think I can not prove the Bible to be 100% accurate and true that is fine. The issue here is you can not come up with anything to show that the Bible is not true. Other then what YOU call "hokum". Did you forget already about what I taught you about how YOU are guilty of what you accuse others of? Your attempt to refute my evidence is little more then "hokum" by your own admission.

We have science, what do we need the bible for?

 

[FredVB]

Why does it have to be either randomness or a creator? Why are those the only 2 options?

The options are that either there was absolute nothing, and from that the universe was sufficiently produced (unrealistic), or something sufficient for all the universe being produced was always existing (meaning there is necessary existence, and I say the Creator is the adequate explanation for that, being without limit in any characteristics, as limits are arbitrary and don't apply to necessary existence).

 

[Neogaia777]

Not to mention the Big Bang Theory has to be seriously questioned and scrutinized based upon new evidence, also the age of the universe that the classically thought probably is not right now either... It's much, maybe, much, much, "older"...

 

[Neogaia777]

I still don't think one of you has tried to give me a number yet...?

 

[FredVB]

Not to mention the Big Bang Theory has to be seriously questioned and scrutinized based upon new evidence, also the age of the universe that the classically thought probably is not right now either... It's much, maybe, much, much, "older"...

What is this new evidence, and what is the much older age that is shown?

 

[Neogaia777]

What is this new evidence, and what is the much older age that is shown?

The fact that we can see 46.5 billion years away, means we can see 46.5 billion years ago, which is about three times older than they thought and accepted as truth about the age of the universe... Though the universe is much older than that even... The fact that, of what we can see of the universe, which is not all of it, it has "no definable center" as far as they can tell, nor can we determine a center even being present... We can see no definable edge or originating center to the universe from the limits of what we can see...

God Bless!