Have fun with this question?

Question

The very early universe:
All our understanding of the very early universe (cosmogony) is speculative. No accelerator experiments currently probe sufficiently high energies to provide insight into this period. Scenarios differ radically. Some ideas include the Hartle-Hawking initial state, string landscape, brane inflation, string gas cosmology, and the ekpyrotic universe. Some of these ideas are mutually compatible, others are not.

The Planck epoch: 10-43 second:
If supersymmetry is correct, then at this time the four fundamental forces – electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force and gravity – all have the same strength, so they are possibly unified into one fundamental force.

So my question is:
Where did the electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force and gravity come from? Did they just poof out of nowhere? If you answer yes then you beleive in a higher power, if you answer no, then How were these things born/created/appeared.

Answer 1

These forces affect every object in the universe. They are set and balanced so precisely that even slight changes could render the universe lifeless.

To many reasoning minds, the explanation simply has to be something more than mere coincidence. John Polkinghorne, formerly a physicist at Cambridge University, concluded: “When you realize that the laws of nature must be incredibly finely tuned to produce the universe we see, that conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that there must be a purpose behind it.”

Australian physicist Paul Davies made a similar point: “There is no doubt that many scientists are . . . scornful of the notion that there might exist a God, or even an impersonal creative principle.” He added: “Personally I do not share their scorn. . . . I cannot believe that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, . . . an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama

A second problem challenging today’s scientists involves the sheer complexity of the world around us. Common sense tells us that the more complex an event, the less likely it is to occur by chance. Consider an example.

There are myriad chemical reactions that need to be precisely staged to form DNA, the building block of life. Three decades ago Dr. Frank Salisbury of Utah State University, U.S.A., calculated the odds of the spontaneous formation of a basic DNA molecule essential for the appearance of life. The calculations revealed the probability to be so tiny that it is considered mathematically impossible


Complexity is especially evident when living organisms have complex parts that would be useless without other complex parts


number of species had to develop reproductive cells requiring fertilization by a male with complementary reproductive cells. In order to supply the proper number of chromosomes to the offspring, each parent’s reproductive cells undergo a remarkable process called meiosis, whereby cells from each parent are left with half the usual number of chromosomes. This process prevents the offspring from having too many chromosomes.

Of course, the same process would have been needed for other species. How, then, did the “first mother” of each species become capable of reproducing with a fully developed “first father”? How could both of them have suddenly been able to halve the number of chromosomes in their reproductive cells in the manner needed to produce a healthy offspring with some characteristics of both parents? And if these reproductive features developed gradually, how would the male and female of each species have survived while such vital features were still only partially formed?

In even a single species, the odds against this reproductive interdependence coming about by chance are beyond measuring. The chance that it arose in one species after another defies reasonable explanation. Can a theoretical process of evolution explain such complexity? How could accidental, random, purposeless events result in such intricately interrelated systems? Living things are full of characteristics that show evidence of foresight and planning—pointing to an intelligent Planner.

Many scholars have come to such a conclusion. For example, mathematician William A. Dembski wrote that the “intelligent design” evident in “observable features of the natural world . . . can be adequately explained only by recourse to intelligent causes.” Molecular biochemist Michael Behe sums up the evidence this way: “You can be a good Catholic and believe in Darwinism. Biochemistry has made it increasingly difficult, however, to be a thoughtful scientist and believe in it.”

A third mystery that has puzzled some scientists is related to the fossil record. If evolution proceeded over aeons of time, we should expect to find a host of intermediate organisms, or links, between the major types of living things. However, the countless fossils unearthed since Darwin’s time have proved disappointing in that respect. The missing links are just that—missing!

A number of scientists have therefore concluded that the evidence for evolution is too weak and contradictory to prove that life evolved. Aerospace engineer Luther D. Sutherland wrote in his book Darwin’s Enigma: “The scientific evidence shows that whenever any basically different type of life first appeared on Earth, all the way from single-celled protozoa to man, it was complete and its organs and structures were complete and fully functional. The inescapable deduction to be drawn from this fact is that there was some sort of pre-existing intelligence before life first appeared on Earth.”

On the other hand, the fossil record closely matches the general order of the appearance of living forms found in the Bible book of Genesis. Donald E. Chittick, a physical chemist who earned a doctorate degree at Oregon State University, comments: “A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states. They did not change from one kind into another. The evidence now, as in Darwin’s day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found.”

The foregoing represents just the tip of an iceberg of unanswered questions that puzzle those who dismiss the evidence of a Creator. Some scientists realize that the rejection of God is a path paved, not by hard evidence and careful logic, but by hopeful assumptions and conjectures.

Thus, after a lifetime of fruitful scientific research and work, astronomer Allan Sandage said: “It was my science that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science. It is only through the supernatural that I can understand the mystery of existence

Answer 2

"Where did the electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force and gravity come from? Did they just poof out of nowhere? If you answer yes then you beleive in a higher power...".

Nope. "Poof out of nowhere" and "A higher power did it" are two entirely different things.

If you're going to just assume your conclusion, why did you bother with all the other stuff?

Answer 3

You need to read

http://www.amazon.com/Connectivity-Hypothesis-Foundations-Integral-Consciousness/dp/0791457869/sr=8-1/qid=1170857889/ref=sr_1_1/102-5478643-1795354?ie=UTF8&s=books

A higher power is not a necessary explanation -- just previous universes which holographically encoded these parameters in the universal wavefunction of the zero point field.

Answer 4

Yes.

I'd recommend the book "The Privileged Planet" it goes into what you are asking about.

Answer 5

Yes. Where else did they come from? Dust particles?

Answer 6

yes

Answer 7

Potential energy is real, baby!