You don't get something for nothing....

[doodab]

or do you?

An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing, but no rigorous proof has been given. In this paper, we present such a proof based on the analytic solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (WDWE).

[1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

[MarillionFan]

1 + -1 = 0

Where do I pick up my Nobel prize?

[doodab]

1 + -1 = 0

Where do I pick up my Nobel prize?

There is no Nobel prize for Mathematics. You need to turn penguin tulip into gold or something.

[suityou01]

Well thermodynamics is a zero sum game, so ok I'm buying.

[OwlHoot]

1 + -1 = 0

Where do I pick up my Nobel prize?

You can laugh, but that might not be so far from the truth!

x_1 + x_2 + x_3 + .... + x_n = 0

x_1 x_2 x_3 ... x_n = 1

is a Calabi-Yau manifold for any n > 1 (and so, among other things, a vacuum solution of the field equations of General Relativity)

Also, for n = 4 (a case I've spent quite a while studying for a purpose unrelated to physics) it has some other intriguing properties, including what look like symmetries under special conformal transformation groups.

Plus is has an obvious composition property, whereby one combine two such manifolds additively and multiplicatively for the respective equations to get a new pair of the same form.

It's a pig to work with though. For example, it took me _ages_ to prove the trivial-looking fact that

x + y + z + t = 0 and x y z t = 1

is birationally equivalent to

X + Y + Z = T and X Y Z T = 1

(I think if it has any physical significance, the first pair may be remotely related to mass-energy and the second to spacetime, and this is a sort of "signature change" between the two.)

[d000hg]

1 + -1 = 0

Where do I pick up my Nobel prize?

Except that we're not left over with 0, but 0.000...001.

[BrilloPad]

Science has become the new religion. Asseting stuff that cannot be proved and is a matter of faith.

[doodab]

Science has become the new religion. Asseting stuff that cannot be proved and is a matter of faith.

That is a problem with public perception of science, not science itself.

[mudskipper]

You can laugh, but that might not be so far from the truth!

x_1 + x_2 + x_3 + .... + x_n = 0

x_1 x_2 x_3 ... x_n = 1

is a Calabi-Yau manifold for any n > 1 (and so, among other things, a vacuum solution of the field equations of General Relativity)

Also, for n = 4 (a case I've spent quite a while studying for a purpose unrelated to physics) it has some other intriguing properties, including what look like symmetries under special conformal transformation groups.

Plus is has an obvious composition property, whereby one combine two such manifolds additively and multiplicatively for the respective equations to get a new pair of the same form.

It's a pig to work with though. For example, it took me _ages_ to prove the trivial-looking fact that

x + y + z + t = 0 and x y z t = 1

is birationally equivalent to

X + Y + Z = T and X Y Z T = 1

(I think if it has any physical significance, the first pair may be remotely related to mass-energy and the second to spacetime, and this is a sort of "signature change" between the two.)

WHS

[BrilloPad]

That is a problem with public perception of science, not science itself.

bollux. you think we are ever going to know how the universe started?

Its tough enough finding out how cuk started.