exactly you made up your own bullshit model and left out the major components.
stu prefers to bullshit than to read science...
I will provide a few more paragraphs from the paper which make it plain as day stu is full of shit about what hawkings says.
But cosmology poses questions of a very different character. In our past there is an epoch of the early universe when quantum gravity was important. The remnants of this early phase are all around us. The central problem in cosmology is to
understand why these remnants are what they are, and how the distinctive features
of our universe emerged from the big bang. Clearly it is not an S-matrix that is the relevant observable for these predictions, since we live in the middle of this particular experiment. Furthermore, we have no control over the initial state of the universe, and there is certainly no opportunity for observing multiple copies of the universe.
In fact if one does adopt a bottom-up approach to cosmology, one is immediately led to an essentially classical framework, in which one loses all ability to explain cosmologyâs central question - why our universe is the way it is. In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully fine-tuned - as if prescribed by an outside agency
- or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation [11], which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see.
Here we put forward a different approach to cosmology in the string landscape, based not on the classical idea of a single history for the universe but on the quantum sum over histories [12]. We argue that the quantum origin of the universe naturally
leads to a framework for cosmology where amplitudes for alternative histories of the universe are computed with boundary conditions at late times only. We thus envision a set of alternative universes in the landscape, with amplitudes given by the no
boundary path integral [13]. The measure on the landscape provided by no boundary initial conditions allows one to derive predictions for observations. This is done by evaluating probabilities
for alternative histories that obey a set of constraints at late times. The constraints provide information that is supplementary to the fundamental laws and act as a selection principle. In particular, they select the subclass of histories that contribute to the amplitude of interest. One then identifies alternatives within this subclass
that have probabilities near one. These include, in particular, predictions of future observations. The framework we propose is thus more like a top down approach to cosmology, where the histories of the universe depend on the precise question asked.
We illustrate our framework in a model landscape that admits several distinct classes of inflationary histories for the universe. In this model, we predict several properties of the subclass of histories that are three-dimensional, expanding and approximately flat at late times. We also discuss in general terms the predictions of top down cosmology in more complicated models like the string landscape.
Finally we discuss in what respect the top down approach differs from other (bottom-up) approaches to cosmology in the string landscape, such as eternal in-flation or pre-big bang cosmology
Quote from stu:
I didn't mention string theory.
I haven't even talked of "other universes and vacuaa"
If your education is only ever going to be arrived at by clipping parts of text from places like wiki, then you'll just have to remain ignorant. The bit you did grab is connected with first experimental tests . You've again jumped to another of your erroneous conclusions.
Varying cosmological constants have been predicted since the 1930's. A varying fine-structure constant is consistent with present day observations. That is what was said.
It is not at all clear that constants are of fixed values. There is observation and scientific data which firmly suggests the contrary.
There is no "Creator" in any of this. Go argue with yourself against these two thing you came up with.
So natural self-selecting constants it is then. I have no argument with you on that.
A "Creator" is redundant. Question is why do you need one so badly.
has been motivated by string theory and other such proposals for going beyond the Standard Model of particle physics. The first experimental tests of this question examined the spectral lines of distant astronomical objects, and the products of radioactive decay in the Oklo natural nuclear fission reactor. The findings were consistent with no change.[16][17][18][19][20][21]