beecee

If different universes were existing, it is quite logical that different constants could also pertain to them...not sure how you can say they wouldn't. And any future validated QGT could be evidence or otherwise of that scenario. On the other hand ID or any other supernatural means is unscientific and non falsifiable. Again I am at a loss, how you can equate a speculative chance fluctuation in the quantum foam, that may or may not be evidenced with a future validated QGT, with some unscientific divine myth. Agreed that fine tuning is a bad choice of words, and that it only applies to the impetus for the occurence of abiogenisis and evolution of life in our universe, and is just one of probable many in the quantum foam. And of course "we don't know" has already been agreed upon, although in my opinion, the chance option is still the highly favoured position. I'm saying that today's particle accelerators etc, have shown that space and time arose from a hotter, denser universe, where we are able to reasonably assume the unification of the four forces at an early time, the creation of matter as pressures and temperatures dropped, further to atomic nuclei and I guess you probably know the rest of the probable accepted evolution of the universe. All under the constants and laws associated with our spacetime. Obviously the closer we go back to the 10-43 second period, the less certain our assumptions are, and again, any further back to the quantum/Planck era is stepping into speculation, but I add, reasonable speculation that could one day be supported by evidence.

Not sure why I need to state it. You certainly know my position as far as the incumbent model goes, just as I know your position with your alternative/s hypotheticals. I know for a fact that V4G and/or any other model are still also rans, though to the credit of aLIGO, VIRGO, research is still being done to test all, according to current known pricisions with available equipement. Although the greater precision of LISA may be needed to further validate GR or one of the other. Plenty of doubt and refutation if you read all the links I have given, and of course as Mordred has mentioned, why aLIGO needs to signal out your pet hypothetical is a mystery. Need I point out that Svidzinky's has been murdered in some quarters in the opinions of some reputable experts, as per the article, while others are still considering it and continuing research and testing as is the case in all instances of GR and any potential superior model, I'm sure you will agree..

U'm actually referring to both as simply alternatives that have not surpassed GR and serious doubt s that they ever will. There obviously has been plenty of spirited responses, as well as the usual mainstream research into all forms of the alternatives. That's how science works. In the meantime.... https://www.quantamagazine.org/troubled-times-for-alternatives-to-einsteins-theory-of-gravity-20180430/ Troubled Times for Alternatives to Einstein’s Theory of Gravity New observations of extreme astrophysical systems have “brutally and pitilessly murdered” attempts to replace Einstein’s general theory of relativity. extract: There are also stand-alone theories, like that of physicist Erik Verlinde. According to his theory, the laws of gravity arise naturally from the laws of thermodynamics just like “the way waves emerge from the molecules of water in the ocean,” Zumalacárregui said. Verlinde wrote in an email that his ideas are not an “alternative theory” of gravity, but “the next theory of gravity that contains and transcends Einstein’s general relativity.” But he is still developing his ideas. “My impression is that the theory is still not sufficiently worked out to permit the kind of precision tests we carry out,” Archibald said. It’s built on “fancy words,” Zumalacárregui said, “but no mathematical framework to compute predictions and do solid tests.” The predictions made by other theories differ in some way from those of general relativity. Yet these differences can be subtle, which makes them incredibly difficult to find. Consider the neutron-star merger. At the same time that the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) spotted the gravitational waves emanating from the event, the space-based Fermi satellite spotted a gamma ray burst from the same location. The two signals had traveled across the universe for 130 million years before arriving at Earth just 1.7 seconds apart. These nearly simultaneous observations “brutally and pitilessly murdered” TeVeS theories, said Paulo Freire, an astrophysicist at the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy in Bonn, Germany. “Gravity and gravitational waves propagate at the speed of light, with extremely high precision — which is not at all what was predicted by those [alternative] theories.”

Well put Mordred, and as supported by the papers..... Speaking for the authors of a couple of papers supporting VG4 gravity, I suppose just as any Mother believes her child to be the most beautiful, would be a good explanation. I repeat though, contrary to some pushing the VG4, and their baseless claims re incalcitrance in mainstream circles, that has been absolutely shown to be total whining and baseless excuses.

Of course LISA while due to its nature and being in space, will be able to detect a great range of frequencies, it will be great to see LISA aloft complimenting the work of the ground base detectors, GW's and GR. I found another paper you may find interesting..... http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/840/1/012030/pdf Primordial Gravitational Waves with LISA: Abstract: Primordial Gravitational Waves are the next target of modern cosmology. They represent a window on the early Universe and the only probe of the physics and microphysics of the inflationary period. When the production of GWs happens in scenarios richer than the standard single-field slow-roll, the GW signal becomes potentially detectable also on scales smaller than the Cosmic Microwave Background. LISA will be extremely complementary to CMB experiments to extract information about primordial inflationary models and in particular to probe phases of the inflationary period for which we have very poor knowledges. 6. Conclusions Primordial GWs are one of the next targets of modern cosmology since they represent a unique opportunity to shed light on the physics of the early Universe and in particular to probe the microphysics of inflation. An irreducible GW background is an ubiquitous prediction of all the inflationary models and this represents a smoking gun of the primordial accelerated expansion. The primary probe of primordial GW is the polarization of the CMB and in particular the curlfree polarization pattern (B-modes). When the inflationary scenario is enriched by secondary fields, besides the inflaton, or by assuming new symmetry pattern, GWs become a target also on scales smaller than CMB, and in particular for interferometers like LISA. While the GW by vacuum fluctuations is not visible by the next generation interferometers, many well-motivated inflationary scenarios produce a signal that can be visible or that can be extremely useful to reduce the parameter space of such scenarios. It becomes clear that a detection of GW signal on the small scales accessible to LISA, will offer a window on scales of inflation on which we currently have little knowledge and will become of fundamental importance in order to provide constraints on tensor perturbations complementary to the CMB. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Primordial Gravitational Waves? Gravitational waves from the BB itself?? From your own link.... https://www.elisascience.org/files/publications/LISA_L3_20170120.pdf Conclusion: The groundbreaking discovery of Gravitational Waves by ground-based laser interferometric detectors in 2015 has changed astronomy, by giving us access to the high-frequency regime of Gravitational Wave astronomy. By 2030 our understanding of the Universe will have been dramatically improved by new observations of cosmic sources through the detection of electromagnetic radiation and high-frequency Gravitational Waves. But in the low-frequency Gravitational Wave window, below one Hertz, we expect to observe the heaviest and most distant objects. Using our new sense to ‘hear’ the Universe with LISA, we will complement our astrophysical knowledge, providing access to a part of the Universe that will forever remain invisible with light. LISA will be the first ever mission to survey the entire Universe with Gravitational Waves. It will allow us to investigate the formation of binary systems in the Milky Way, detect the guaranteed signals from the verification binaries, study the history of the Universe out to redshifts beyond 20, when the Universe was less than 200 million years old, test gravity in the dynamical sector and strong-field regime with unprecedented precision, and probe the early Universe at TeV energy scales. LISA will play a unique and prominent role in the scientific landscape of the 2030s. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And more confirmation re aLIGO, VIRGO and aLISA..... https://scitechdaily.com/next-gen-lisa-gravitational-wave-detector-will-complement-ligo/ extract: Now, another detector is being built to crack this window wider open. This next-generation observatory, called LISA, is expected to be in space in 2034, and it will be sensitive to gravitational waves of a lower frequency than those detected by the Earth-bound Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO). <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Current count is 11 [unless I'm missing something.] Some outstanding cosmology ahead in the next decade or so, and I believe further precision and validation of Albert and GR. In essence the main point I believe being made here and in the science world in general, is that individuals that whine conspiracy, incalcitrance by scientists and general inability to change according to "supposed" new evidence, have been shown to be totally wrong and in error with such accusations. If GR is surpassed [a big big if!] it will be due to the research by the aLIGO/Virgo team, the LISA team and reputable scientists all round the world...nothing more, nothing less.

Thanks Mordred.

OK, Am unable to find what I am looking for, but from memory, before his disease had progressed too far, his speech was very slurred and only able to be understood by his wife Jane. He subsequently communicated a lot with geometrical figures, sketches, light cones etc. There was also a video out called a BHoT it may have been in that......

Earth does have a second Moon of sorts...It's called " Cruithne " https://theconversation.com/earths-other-moon-and-its-crazy-orbit-could-reveal-mysteries-of-the-solar-system-38010

Would "LISA" be any more precise in ability to analyse and have the necessary sensitivity that the present ground based interferometers do not have? [at this point in time]

I will see what I can find, but I did pick that up in his book "A Brief History of Time" I'm fairly sure. Light cones illustrations was one way, but I'm again not too sure he was the first to use them. Bit busy right now but will get back with what I can on that.

Totally agree.

The following is research being undertaken testing the true nature of GW's and of course GR...... https://www.ligo.org/science/Publication-O1StochNonGR/index.php LOOKING FOR "FORBIDDEN" POLARIZATIONS IN THE GRAVITATIONAL-WAVE BACKGROUND WITH ADVANCED LIGO A century ago, Einstein revolutionized our understanding of gravity with his general theory of relativity, which explains gravitational attraction as the curvature of spacetime around massive objects. It could be the case, however, that general relativity is only an approximation of a more complete theory of gravity, much like Newtonian gravity was an approximation of Einstein's theory. To find out whether this is the case, physicists and astronomers put general relativity to the test, comparing the observed properties of gravity to the predictions made by this theory. Any disagreement between the two could signal that general relativity isn't entirely correct. The field of gravitational-wave astronomy, ushered in by Advanced LIGO's direct detection of gravitational waves, gives us opportunities to test general relativity in many new ways. One new test is the study of gravitational-wave polarizations, which describe the characteristic pattern of the wave's distortion of spacetime as it moves. General relativity makes specific predictions about the polarization of gravitational waves. In particular, Einstein's theory only allows gravitational waves to take on two "tensor" polarizations. In contrast, alternative theories of gravity allow for up to four extra gravitational-wave polarizations (called "vector" and "scalar" polarizations). Whether a gravitational wave is tensor-, vector-, or scalar-polarized determines how it distorts spacetime and what direction it can move in as it propagates. (See Fig. 1 here for more details.) According to general relativity, vector and scalar polarizations do not exist. Any experimental observation of these "forbidden" polarizations would therefore prove Einstein wrong, indicating the existence of a complete theory of gravity that is more complicated that general relativity. In this study, we have searched for any traces of the "forbidden" vector and scalar polarizations in the stochastic gravitational-wave background. Unlike the "loud" binary mergers detected by LIGO and Virgo so far, the stochastic background is a soft, persistent "hum" of gravitational waves produced by the combination of many quieter gravitational-wave sources. Although these quiet sources are too weak, too rare, or too distant to be detected individually, when they overlap they produce a long-duration background that appears as static noise in the Advanced LIGO and Virgo detectors (listen here). The strength of the stochastic background is typically described in terms of its energy density, which expresses the fraction of the total energy in the Universe in the form of gravitational waves. Advanced LIGO has previously searched for the stochastic background considering only the tensor-polarized gravitational waves allowed by general relativity. No such background has been detected yet; those searches instead yielded upper limits on the energy density (i.e. strength) of the background, over the whole sky and as a function of the sky direction. If a significant fraction of the stochastic background's energy were instead in the form of the "forbidden" polarizations, then even a loud background could have been missed by previous searches. In this latest analysis, we use data from Advanced LIGO's first scientific observing run (which took place between September 2015 and January 2016) to answer two questions. First: Has Advanced LIGO found evidence of a stochastic gravitational-wave background of any polarization ("forbidden" or not)? Second: Is there any trace of the "forbidden" vector or scalar polarizations in the stochastic background? Ultimately, we find no evidence for a stochastic background of any polarization at the sensitivity of Advanced LIGO and Virgo during the first observing run, and by extension we cannot say whether the stochastic background contains vector or scalar polarizations. What we can do, however, is to place the first upper limits on the strength of vector- and scalar-polarized gravitational waves. The figure shows our inferred probability distributions on the energy densities of tensor- (blue), vector- (red), and scalar-polarized (green) gravitational waves in the stochastic background. The shaded shapes (or probability distributions) illustrate the possible energy densities that are compatible with our measurements — the higher a distribution at a given point, the more likely it is to represent the true value in our data. Notice that each plot in the figure contains two probability distributions. These just correspond to two different initial guesses (also known as "priors") about the relative probability that the strength of the background might take for different values. Regardless of the prior used, we find that all probability distributions sink to zero above sufficiently large energy densities (towards the right side of each plot). We can therefore compute upper limits on the possible strengths of each type of polarization. 90% of the probability distribution of the strength of each polarization is contained within these limits, so the true value will be within the limit nine out of ten times. These upper limits imply that less than one millionth of the energy in the Universe comes from a gravitational-wave background of any polarization. Trying to directly measure gravitational-wave polarizations is a powerful new test of general relativity. While we have not (yet!) detected a stochastic background of gravitational waves or found evidence for the existence of "forbidden" polarizations, this work presents the first upper limits on the energy density due to vector and scalar polarizations. Continued improvements to the sensitivity of Advanced LIGO and Virgo and the construction of additional detectors will allow for better resolution of the polarization content of gravitational waves in the future. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.10194.pdf The detection of gravitational waves with Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo has enabled novel tests of general relativity, including direct study of the polarization of gravitational waves. While general relativity allows for only two tensor gravitational-wave polarizations, general metric theories can additionally predict two vector and two scalar polarizations. The polarization of gravitational waves is encoded in the spectral shape of the stochastic gravitational-wave background, formed by the superposition of cosmological and individuallyunresolved astrophysical sources. Using data recorded by Advanced LIGO during its first observing run, we search for a stochastic background of generically-polarized gravitational waves. We find no evidence for a background of any polarization, and place the first direct bounds on the contributions of vector and scalar polarizations to the stochastic background. Under log-uniform priors for the energy in each polarization, we limit the energy-densities of tensor, vector, and scalar modes at 95% credibility to Ω T 0 < 5.6 × 10−8 , Ω V 0 < 6.4 × 10−8 , and Ω S 0 < 1.1 × 10−7 at a reference frequency f0 = 25 Hz. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326874881_The_Polarizations_of_Gravitational_Waves/fulltext/5b72d6d9299bf14c6da20661/326874881_The_Polarizations_of_Gravitational_Waves.pdf?origin=publication_detail This paper is based on the talk on the International Conference on Quantum Gravity, Shenzhen, China, 26–28 March 2018. The Polarizations of Gravitational Waves† Abstract: The gravitational wave provides a new method to examine General Relativity and its alternatives in the high speed, strong field regime. Alternative theories of gravity generally predict more polarizations than General Relativity, so it is important to study the polarization contents of theories of gravity to reveal the nature of gravity. In this talk, we analyze the polarization contents of Horndeski theory and f(R) gravity. We find out that in addition to the familiar plus and cross polarizations, a massless Horndeski theory predicts an extra transverse polarization, and there is a mix of pure longitudinal and transverse breathing polarizations in the massive Horndeski theory and f(R) gravity. It is possible to use pulsar timing arrays to detect the extra polarizations in these theories. We also point out that the classification of polarizations using Newman–Penrose variables cannot be applied to massive modes. It cannot be used to classify polarizations in Einstein-æther theory or generalized Tensor-Vector-Scalar (TeVeS) theory, either. 6. Conclusions In this talk, we discussed the polarization contents in several alternative theories of gravity: f(R) gravity, Horndeski theory, Einstein-æther theory, and generalized TeVeS theory. Each theory predicts at least one extra polarization states due to the additional d.o.f. provided by it. In the case of the local Lorentz invariant theories, such as f(R) gravity and Horndeski theory, the massive scalar field excites a mix of Pˆ l and Pˆ b ; the massless scalar field induces merely Pˆ b . For the local Lorentz violating theories, such as Einstein-æther theory and generalized TeVeS theory, each of the scalar d.o.f. is massless, but it propagates at speeds different from 1, so it also excites a mix of Pˆ l and Pˆ b . Einstein-æther theory and generalized TeVeS theory also have vector polarizations due to the presence of the vector fields. E(2) classification was designed to categorize the polarizations for the null GWs in the local Lorentz invariant theories, so it cannot be applied to these theories discussed in this talk. The observational tests of the extra polarizations were also discussed. The analysis showed that the interferometers are not sensitive to the longitudinal polarization which might be detected using PTAs. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: The above are just two examples of cosmologists and Astrophysicists continuing the research albeit difficult and as yet inconclusive of the exact nature of gravitational radiation, and the total nonsensical conspiracy approach, that science is incalcitrant, stubborn and incapable of letting go of the past and incumbent theories including GR. Obviously a Nobel awaits any successful person with a more inclusive theory then GR, that will take its place. As yet, that hasn't happened.

Geometry of course is a subset of mathematics in general and concerns itself with shapes and dimensions such as triangles, squares, circles etc. Funny my mathematical ability at school was average, but in geometry I was pretty good and among the tops in my class. Not sure what that actually says about me. Also worth noting that the late Professor Stephen Hawking, mainly communicated [at least in the early days of the onset of his terrible disease] via figures, shapes and geometry to express his ideas.

Despite what some may think of me and my position, I don't like being labelled an Atheist, simply because I accept what I believe to be the logic and sensibility of the scientific methodology. Any dispute I have had with any religious or Intelligent design individual, is nearly always when they unjustly, and ignorantly attack science, while obviously, hypocritically accepting the many benefits that science and technology has provided them and the human race in general. Any underlying truth or reality, if it at all exists, is probably unknowable, as is any position in any belief in any deity is entirely unknowable and unevidenced. I live my life caring for my family to the best of my ability, treating my friends with respect, and also practically doing what I can in a small way for those less fortunate then myself and who do not have the many advantages and position of the lucky country of which I am a citizen of.

Correction: I did not say the "pure chance" hypothesis was unscientific. I said, "I will accept that at this time, we must say in the interest of accuracy, that we don't know. And probably even more disappointingly, we may never know with utmost certainty. It maybe beyond any human comprehension and knowledge to be able to confirm with any certainty"...with a final conclusion of "So, yes, I''ll accept the "we don't know" as the most appropriate answer, but will add for your consideration, that the accidental chance scenario is a reasonable logical assumption to make". Obviously the universe coming into being by "pure chance" or a "cosmic coincidence" is scientific and while we have no direct evidence, we do have a methodology to explain that chance. https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/ the Intelligent design choice is indeed unscientific and only leads to "turtles all the way down" scenarios. It may not explain why, [which is more a philosophical question then a scientific one] but it must be factual in that if any of the constants were not as they are, and if any of the properties were not as they are, we would not be here to contemplate it. Since we are here to contemplate it, it appears that the apparent fine tuning to enable life to evolve to simply be a chance coincidence, brought about by those conditions. By observing and gathering data from many experiments that have been conducted, we are able to [in my opinion anyway] speculate reasonably logically, that our universe arose from a fluctuation in the quantum foam among many other similar but slightly different fluctuations, with ours having the necessary properties and constants to be as we observe today. I don't really see too much remarkable in that admittedly speculative but logical scenario. Probably premature in the fact that at quantum/Planck levels we simply have no method to make the necessary measurements and observations...which obviously explains why as yet we have no validated QGT. I can also understand Feynman's and many other scientists frustrations with string theory and its derivatives in that they have been promising so much for so long.

That's good and what I was pointing out to the author of the OP. Thank you for bring that to my attention. A scientific paper that may be beneficial........ https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/03/23/1522363113 Magnetic field evolution in magnetar crusts through three-dimensional simulations: Significance: The observed diversity of magnetars indicates that their magnetic topology is more complicated than a simple dipole. Current models of their radiative emission, based on axially symmetric simulations, require the presence of a concealed toroidal magnetic field having up to 100 times more energy than the observed dipole component, but the physical origin of such a field is unclear. Our fully 3D simulations of the crustal magnetic field demonstrate that magnetic instabilities operate under a range of plausible conditions and generate small-scale field structures that are an order of magnitude stronger than the large-scale field. The Maxwell stress and Ohmic heating from these structures can explain magnetar bursts and surface hotspots, using comparable poloidal and toroidal magnetic fields. Abstract: Current models of magnetars require extremely strong magnetic fields to explain their observed quiescent and bursting emission, implying that the field strength within the star’s outer crust is orders of magnitude larger than the dipole component inferred from spin-down measurements. This presents a serious challenge to theories of magnetic field generation in a proto-neutron star. Here, we present detailed modeling of the evolution of the magnetic field in the crust of a neutron star through 3D simulations. We find that, in the plausible scenario of equipartition of energy between global-scale poloidal and toroidal magnetic components, magnetic instabilities transfer energy to nonaxisymmetric, kilometer-sized magnetic features, in which the local field strength can greatly exceed that of the global-scale field. These intense small-scale magnetic features can induce high-energy bursts through local crust yielding, and the localized enhancement of Ohmic heating can power the star’s persistent emission. Thus, the observed diversity in magnetar behavior can be explained with mixed poloidal−toroidal fields of comparable energies. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hope that helps somewhat in your research!

With regards to your OP, I found the following which maybe of interest to you.... https://lecospa.ntu.edu.tw/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/pub_2012_21.pdf I see it as entirely relevant that mass/energy warps spacetime and that light follows geodesics in that spacetime. The magnetic field itself does not directly affect it as has been said. My apologies if you find that confusing, but I believe it is simply put and was understood by the author of the OP.

More correctly and as is made clear, the magnetic field just like any other form of mass/energy warps the spacetime in its vicinity, and light follows geodesics in that curved spacetime. Here's another verification quote from an expert..... https://www.quora.com/Can-a-magnet-bend-light Q: Can a magnet bend light? Kris Walker, BSc Adv. Physics & Astrophysics, Monash University (2021) Answered Sep 27, 2017 A; Yes, a magnetic field "has the capacity to bend spacetime and thus light". The Einstein field equations state that Gμν=8πTμνGμν=8πTμν If the energy-momentum tensor TμνTμν describes that of an electromagnetic field in free space then its value can be described by the Einstein-Maxwell equation for the electromagnetic stress-energy tensor TEMμν=14π(F λμFνλ−14FσλFσλgμν)TμνEM=14π(Fμ λFνλ−14FσλFσλgμν) This value contributes to the final value TμνTμν. The curvature will be negligible for small magnetic fields but for very strong ones the contribution is significant. Like always, the light will appear to curve when travelling a respective geodesic in this warped spacetime. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: A probable lesser know fact is that light/photons themselves also ever so very slightly, warp spacetime due to their momentum.... Yep, that's all I'm saying in relation to spacetime curvature and the geodesic path of light, and I believe important.

Do, Re Mi Fa So La Ti Do..... I am certainly not questioning your skill as a music mixer. What I question is your presumption that it is anything other then just a simple coincidence.

On an old, now defunct science forum, run by the ABC [Australian Broadcasting Service] we had a tremendously long debate entitled, "What Colour is an Orange in the dark" The answer is of course it has no colour, as colour while being interpreted as you have said, must be qualified with the fact that the colour of any object in the first instance, depends on the nature of the EMR that falls on the body. eg; On New Years Eve, the normally white sails of the Sydney Opera House, were seen in many different colours depending on the light that fell upon the sails. as it really is.....

Perhaps I have been too involved in debates with YEC's and other assorted god botherers, and that has influenced my "fixed" position on the universe being strictly accidental and chance. I will accept that at this time, we must say in the interest of accuracy, that we don't know. And probably even more disappointingly, we may never know with utmost certainty. It maybe beyond any human comprehension and knowledge to be able to confirm with any certainty. My problem I'l admit is that this immediatley is seen by the god botherers as something to hang their hat on, but on further thinking, they have already hung this hat on the current accepted BB theory. Of course in actual fact accepting "we don't know" does not add any more credence for any divine deity, and obviously the question remains more philosophical then scientific. So, yes, I''ll accept the "we don't know" as the most appropriate answer, but will add for your consideration, that the accidental chance scenario is a reasonable logical assumption to make. ps: I see a couple of more replies while I'm typing this and havn't checked them out prior to pushing the "submit reply"button. I bow to your better word construction.

I'm not sure I am able to accept that analogy as relevant. Simply what you describe could be interpreted as a property or law of the universe which arose by chance. What I am asserting is that the universe is/was a chance accident, and whether that came about by some fluctuation in the quantum foam, [which so far to my mind appears the most logical and likely supported by most cosmologists] is not yet entirely confirmed or empirically evidenced. But that uncertainty in the exact methodology, still does not give any credence to the point you appear to be making concerning some laws or intelligence that holds the current laws and constants in place; or obviously as Strange has explained and as per the Feynman video, the question of why the laws are as they are. Even if it were inevitable, I fail to see that as supporting your hypothetical claim.

As an enthusiastic amateur, I see the up/down votes more as pointing to an individual's reputation, and for any newbie [which I was at one time] is a great indication of who to recognise and trust on any site, although with most crackpottery that is fairly obvious. I also see that someone has already mentioned the dangers of down votes as a form of childish revenge, and that is certainly true as I have been on the receiving end of that sort of operation by one individual here already. Thankfully though quick action against this was forthcoming. My own down votes, which I try to keep to a minimum, are generally reserved for the obvious crack pots, the anti mainstream brigade when such debates start verging on ignoring of the actual evidence that supports mainstream, and those that use religion and deities as a god of the gaps. Scientific issues sometimes are open to more then one interpretation, and many times certain issues are simply a matter of opinion. I'm actually crossing swords with one member now who obviously knows what he is talking about, but as yet, I remain unconvinced as to the point he is trying to make. So as yet, I find it unnecessary to saddle him with any down vote. In essence I see up/down votes as a necessary evil on any public forum open to any Tom, Dick or Harry, and as a guide for newbies to recognise the quality of a question and/or answer.

I'm having trouble thinking up any other possible option, plus if by chance it isn't pure chance, doesn't that then mean its intentional? Which then raises the question of design? While probably not classed as a scientific theory stage as yet, doesn't the preponderance of evidence and data we do have, point to chance or accident?

Nice to debate a contentious point with someone qualified! Let me add, When I infer we only have two choices, I'm saying that one choice is the scientific path, and the other spiritual and unscientific. My experience here tells me that you would adhere to the scientific path as an answer. My reasoning on that scientific answer being that the universe we know, is simply an accident among probable many other potential universes. And while certainly speculative, I believe the Anthropic principle supports this. Our universe, our bubble in the quantum foam, was tuned for life as we know it, is what I'm and I believe what the strong anthropic principle supports. Similarly the process of universal Abiogenesis appears to be the only scientific answer, despite no direct evidence [other then once there was no life, then there was life] and no detail as to the exact process. OK, then we accept that we don't have an answer to the philosophical question of how, but still have an answer to the scientific question of universal abiogenesis in principal. While much of what I said is assumptions, science does deal in and follow on from assumptions. eg: The isotropic and homogeneous nature of our universe. OK, with regards to your first sentence, what other options are there/ other then perhaps a pre BB universe that has existed forever.And that maybe the quantum foam and the actual 'nothing" that is often talked on. On your question in the second paragraph, no I can't.