What is the creation science theory of the origin of light?

It seems that your entire approach to science is "Can I understand this? If so, it is probably correct; if not, it is almost certainly wrong." I have to say that this combination of utter arrogance and total ineptitude is endemic amongst the cranks and armchair pontificators that spring up on the internet. I am sorry to say but you have wasted your eight years of "study". Within a matter of days, you could have read the first few chapters of Superstrings by Green, Schwarz, and Witten (Cambridge University Press), and would know exactly why we have these extra dimensions in String Theory - but somehow I get the feeling that these eight years of "study" have studeously avoided anything that can be considered close to actual academic work.Don't get me wrong - there are many who have little time for String Theory and its descendents, many for whom I have the deepest respect. But they come to their conclusions based upon a foundation of knowledge and expertise, where-as you come to your "conclusions" based upon ignorance and incomprehension. There is, as I'm sure you will agree, a fundemental difference...

I'm sorry, Alfred, but your own writing reveals exactly how much understanding you possess, and all the bluster and bravdo in the world cannot disguise its vacuity. Directing you to a published textbook is not exactly an appeal to authority, and your thinking that it is simply reveals more of your crank mindset. And I do not appeal to others' authority: having worked with two of the three authors, I have enough of my own Anyone wanting to know why String Theory requires extra dimensions would do well to check out this old post of mine Message 99. Lots of good stuff in the preceding messages as well...

I must admit that my first paid employment was indeed cleaning "latrines" - it must have been this on my CV that led the University of Cambridge to employ me to teach both physics and mathematics. Such insight, Alfred. If only you could apply it to science. Sadly, once again, your muddled verbosity simply reveals yet more ignorance. I would spend time explaining further the basics of String Theory, except that I have always had a policy of only teaching those that have a desire to learn. You know the adage: teaching the pig to sing is futile and furthermore annoys the pig. Of course, should anyone else have any questions, please post them in an appropriate thread and I'll do my best to find time to answer them.

No, only yours. It is blatently obvious to everyone else. You already think you see better and further than the entire world body of mathematicians and physicists working in the fields of cosmology and theoretical physics. You think that your own judgment on reasonableness is a sound metric for whether a theory has merit or otherwise. And yet you demonstrate zero mathematical knowledge and ability to actually discuss the physics in its proper place. No, this is definitely a pig that should be left well alone.However, ignoring my own good sense, do not get so hung up upon the word "string". You are criticising the analogy, not the physics (now there's a surprise.) Go back to the Polyakov action. Understand that the X fields are simply our own space-time dimensions. Calculate the equations of motion of the Xs, and you find you simply get a set of Wave-Equations. And thus the 3d cross-section of the 2d string world-sheet appears as a loop carrying virbrational modes. Simple.

Says the hearer of the analogy No wonder you are so confused and know so little... Pure gibberish. You don't even undertstand the concept of "field equations" No, no it is not Why do you even bother, Alfred? Your words may bamboozle others, but you're talking to an actual physicist who used to publish on this very subject. I'm sorry, but the only conversation we can ever have is me explaining yet again that you are talking bollocks. Oh for fuck's sake

Quarks preceded electrmagnetic radiation by some distance (as measured by energy scale, rather than the unimaginably small fraction of a second separating them), as the elctroweak symmetry breaking occurs at much lower energy than the quantum chromodynamic scale. And gravity precedes both. So light is actually the last on the scene.

No, as I explained above, it is actually the last product. And its velocity was irrelevant as the density was so high that photons couldn't actually travel any measurable distance before colliding. The earliest of which was emitted hundreds of thousands of years after the big bang. So that doesn't help you either.

No, it doesn't. No, it doesn't. No, they're not. And the "size" is irrelevant. Quarks don't appear before photons because they're "smaller" Nope - the neutrino background vastly pre-dates the electromagnetic background, so gives an earlier picture of the Universe. And as described, light is most certainly not the first identifiable product.

You're right. There's me, a scientist in the fields of cosmology and theoretical phyaics, and there's everyone else. But don't worry, I don't mind. No, you wouldn't (fogetting for the moment the completely non-sensical concept of being able to look at the BB occuring) as there would be no light. Light has not yet come into being. The speed of light obviously has relevance, but no, that is not how we arrive at the 14B figure. Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Nope - tens of millions of years at the very least Nope - the cosmic microwave background radiation was emiited ~400k years after the Big Bang.

No, I am most certainly not saying that. Photons are not "smaller" than quarks - such a comparison is essentially meaningless. And quarks and gluons definitely predate photons.

You're getting caught up on usage of "Universe". Alfred's use could be phrased "physical existence". What he is saying about magic is not unreasonable. Where he goes wrong is thinking that when we refer to the Big Bang, he assumes that we imagine some "pre-Big Bang" nothingness within which the Big Bang is initiated. This would be magic. As I often repeat, the Big Bang is not "caused", it is simply one end of the Universe. Thinking that it requires a prior-cause is a category error. Cause and effect are simply a result of the casual structure of the space-time of which our Universe is made. To suggest that they should apply to the Universe as a whole (or indeed to the point of the Big Bang) is to ask at what latitude and longitude can we find the Earth.The Big Bang could of course be embedded in some larger space, as we have in nearly all post-classical scenarios: colliding branes, eternal/chaotic inflation, etc. But this merely pushes out the boundaries of physical existence, and the Big Bang is no longer an origin/boundary/limit.But whether the Universe has an infinte past or a finite past, two things remain: physical existence does not require a "cause" (in any sense being talked about here), and we still have no clue as to why it is here!