it takes a bit of time but even wikipedia shows you lie your ass off an just make shit up to be troll.
as I told your lying ass many times..
Susskind took the 10 to the 500 string theory solutions postulated that those solutions could all be real. Thus the string landscape of solutions is a multiverse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory_landscape
The string theory landscape or anthropic landscape refers to the large number of possible false vacua in string theory.[1] The "landscape" includes so many possible configurations that some physicists[who?] think that the known laws of physics, the standard model and general relativity with a positive cosmological constant, occur in at least one of them. The anthropic landscape refers to the collection of those portions of the landscape that are suitable for supporting human life, an application of the anthropic principle that selects a subset of the theoretically possible configurations.
In string theory the number of false vacua is commonly quoted as 10500.[1] The large number of possibilities arises from different choices of Calabi-Yau manifolds and different values of generalized magnetic fluxes over different homology cycles. If one assumes that there is no structure in the space of vacua, the problem of finding one with a sufficiently small cosmological constant is NP complete,[2] being a version of the subset sum problem.
[edit]Anthropic principle
Main article: Anthropic principle
The idea of the string theory landscape has been used to propose a concrete implementation of the anthropic principle, the idea that fundamental constants may have the values they have not for fundamental physical reasons, but rather because such values are necessary for life (and hence intelligent observers to measure the constants). In 1987, Steven Weinberg proposed that the observed value of the cosmological constant was so small because it is not possible for life to occur in a universe with a much larger cosmological constant.[3] In order to implement this idea in a concrete physical theory, it is necessary to postulate a multiverse in which fundamental physical parameters can take different values. This has been realized in the context of eternal inflation.
====
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse_(science)
Non-scientific claims
In his NY TImes opinion piece, A Brief History of the Multiverse, author and cosmologist, Paul Davies, offers a variety of arguments that multiverse theories are non-scientific :[17]
For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith.
â Paul Davies, A Brief History of the Multiverse
Taking cosmic inflation as a popular case in point, George Ellis provides a balanced criticism of not only the science, but as he suggests, the scientific philosophy, by which multiverse theories are generally substantiated. He, like most cosmologists, accepts Tegmark's level I âdomainsâ, even though they lie far beyond the cosmological horizon. Likewise, the multiverse of cosmic inflation is said to exist very far away. It would be so far away, however, that it's very unlikely any evidence of an early interaction will be found. He argues that for many theorists, the lack of empirical testability or falsifiability is not a major concern. âMany physicists who talk about the multiverse, especially advocates of the string landscape, do not care much about parallel universes per se. For them, objections to the multiverse as a concept are unimportant. Their theories live or die based on internal consistency and, one hopes, eventual laboratory testing.â Although he believes there's little hope that will ever be possible, he grants that the theories on which the speculation is based, are not without scientific merit. He concludes that multiverse theory is a âproductive research programâ:[18]
As skeptical as I am, I think the contemplation of the multiverse is an excellent opportunity to reflect on the nature of science and on the ultimate nature of existence: why we are here⦠In looking at this concept, we need an open mind, though not too open. It is a delicate path to tread. Parallel universes may or may not exist; the case is unproved. We are going to have to live with that uncertainty. Nothing is wrong with scientifically based philosophical speculation, which is what multiverse proposals are. But we should name it for what it is.
â George Ellis, Scientific American, Does the Multiverse Really Exist?
Quote from stu:
I know no such thing.
False vacuums. Not multiverse, not string landscape. You want to call false vacua - multiverses, then you are in direct conflict with your own authority - Stephen Hawking.
The string landscape is not "the multiverse". I asked you a long while back to explain what you are assuming is being meant by the word multiverse, because it most certainly isn't the same thing being proposed in science.
You not understanding this stuff is not me lying my ass jem.
