You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Video| Fine Tuning from the Top Scientists
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
Quote from Ricter:
In order to save you two a bit of time...
Start
Dim Troll as String
For I=1 to 1000000000
If Troll="stu" Then
Troll="jem"
Else
Troll="stu"
Next I
End
: )
you left out... insert strong verified content...
and then
reply...
Start for Stu...
pretend content means something contrary to English.
insult jem.
end.
Posting Susskind is not what can be called an intelligent response to what you said was Hawking mentioning or involving the Multiverse, which of course Hawking specifically does not.Quote from jem:
what a bunch of pure horseshit you wrote stu.
go to 11 minutes on the video and watch to the end.
it is an great explanation of the multiverse.
a huge blueprint of possibilites and way to populate.
tying the landscape and the multiverse up perfectly.
Susskind explains.
Pocket universe, mega verse, multiverse... all the same thing.
Then he clarifies he created the term landscape.
Stu your entire argument is based on your troll ignorance.
You have been lying about this science for 5 years.
But no issue with Susskind anyway now as you admit. He explained why your 'Tuner Creator Designer God' is not required.
Me lying about the science for 5 years? Lol How would you know.
Thanks to 5 years willfull ignorance, you hardly have the comprehension to make a reply without the word troll in it or to construct a proper sentence, nevermind enough science to produce a coherent argument.
Stu you are a joke troll. When you deserve the time it takes to recieve proper sentences you will get them. Til then you will get quotes the scientists themselves, strung together by typos from me. (pun intended)
Susskind is a famous and respected cosmologist who says when he invented the term Landscape he took it from biology to represent the possibilities of the multiverse. He also tells you on the tape that the Landscape is the same as a multiverse or megaverse.
He explained that the 10 to the 500 solutions for universes derived from string theory is the landscape of possibilities and then explained that it needed to be populate it.
(all this is on the tape.)
Hawking then names his paper
"Populating the Landscape"
and says this...
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0602091
he opens the paper with this sentence...
"We put forward a framework for cosmology that combines the string landscape with no boundary initial conditions. In this framework, amplitudes for alternative histories for the universe are calculated with final boundary conditions only. This leads to a top down approach to cosmology, in which the histories of the universe depend on the precise question asked. We study the observational consequences of no boundary initial conditions on the landscape, and outline a scheme to test the theory. This is illustrated in a simple model landscape that admits several alternative inflationary histories for the universe. Only a few of the possible vacua in the landscape will be populated. We also discuss in what respect the top down approach differs from other approaches to cosmology in the string landscape, like eternal inflation
and closes the paper with this...
"In a cosmology based on eternal inflation there is only one universe with a fractal structure at late times, whereas in top down cosmology one envisions a set of alternative universes, which are more likely to be homogeneous, but with different
values for various effective coupling constants."
Susskind is a famous and respected cosmologist who says when he invented the term Landscape he took it from biology to represent the possibilities of the multiverse. He also tells you on the tape that the Landscape is the same as a multiverse or megaverse.
He explained that the 10 to the 500 solutions for universes derived from string theory is the landscape of possibilities and then explained that it needed to be populate it.
(all this is on the tape.)
Hawking then names his paper
"Populating the Landscape"
and says this...
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0602091
he opens the paper with this sentence...
"We put forward a framework for cosmology that combines the string landscape with no boundary initial conditions. In this framework, amplitudes for alternative histories for the universe are calculated with final boundary conditions only. This leads to a top down approach to cosmology, in which the histories of the universe depend on the precise question asked. We study the observational consequences of no boundary initial conditions on the landscape, and outline a scheme to test the theory. This is illustrated in a simple model landscape that admits several alternative inflationary histories for the universe. Only a few of the possible vacua in the landscape will be populated. We also discuss in what respect the top down approach differs from other approaches to cosmology in the string landscape, like eternal inflation
and closes the paper with this...
"In a cosmology based on eternal inflation there is only one universe with a fractal structure at late times, whereas in top down cosmology one envisions a set of alternative universes, which are more likely to be homogeneous, but with different
values for various effective coupling constants."
Quote from stu:
Posting Susskind is not what can be called an intelligent response to what you said was Hawking mentioning or involving the Multiverse, which of course Hawking specifically does not.
But no issue with Susskind anyway now as you admit. He explained why your 'Tuner Creator Designer God' is not required.
Me lying about the science for 5 years? Lol How would you know.
Thanks to 5 years willfull ignorance, you hardly have the comprehension to make a reply without the word troll in it or to construct a proper sentence, nevermind enough science to produce a coherent argument.
First of all I am presenting Susskind in his own words.
We have no need to consider my knowledge to rebuke your baloney... we just review the tape starting at 11 minutes.
secondly... your strawman tactic is juvenile...
I have never denied that one explanation for the fine tuning of our universe takes the form of faith in or speculation about the existence of 10 to the 500 other unseen, unproven universes.
if you state other histories or other universes or places with other constants exist... as you have in the past.. Stu... you exhibit faith.
If you are simply saying if we were to find almost infinite other universes.... then you are speculating.
So Stu do you currently explain the fine tuning by faith or speculation?
We have no need to consider my knowledge to rebuke your baloney... we just review the tape starting at 11 minutes.
secondly... your strawman tactic is juvenile...
I have never denied that one explanation for the fine tuning of our universe takes the form of faith in or speculation about the existence of 10 to the 500 other unseen, unproven universes.
if you state other histories or other universes or places with other constants exist... as you have in the past.. Stu... you exhibit faith.
If you are simply saying if we were to find almost infinite other universes.... then you are speculating.
So Stu do you currently explain the fine tuning by faith or speculation?
Quote from stu:
So ...all you are confirming, apart from how little you understand about the term landscape and the subject in general, is how Susskind explains why your 'Tuner Creator Designer God' is not required.
How many times is that now you've shot yourself in the foot? I lost count.
You're right in as much as "we" don't need to consider your knowledge considering how apparent you've made it how little you have .
What takes faith is saying as you do, "the fine tuning" , when no scientist including Susskind says the universe IS fine tuned.
Susskind and the rest you misunderstand so easily, do have some math, quantum mechanics and the laws of physics behind them.
Whereas your desperate claim for a Tuner Creator God..... doesn't. In fact, has nothing but blind ignorant faith.
That's the point.
What takes faith is saying as you do, "the fine tuning" , when no scientist including Susskind says the universe IS fine tuned.
Susskind and the rest you misunderstand so easily, do have some math, quantum mechanics and the laws of physics behind them.
Whereas your desperate claim for a Tuner Creator God..... doesn't. In fact, has nothing but blind ignorant faith.
That's the point.
you are the troll who does not understand the math or the science.
The fricken standard model of the universe was just confirmed when they predicted mass and the found the higgs boson at the Cern LHC. They used 20 or so constants fine tuned to 32 decimal places.
That is extreme fine tuning.
The explanation for the fine tuning is what is driving your 1950s random chance atheism crazy.
The fricken standard model of the universe was just confirmed when they predicted mass and the found the higgs boson at the Cern LHC. They used 20 or so constants fine tuned to 32 decimal places.
That is extreme fine tuning.
The explanation for the fine tuning is what is driving your 1950s random chance atheism crazy.
See? Another unsolicited ad hom. You can't help yourself.
They used no such thing as 20 constants fine tuned to 30 decimal places to find Higgs. The Standard Model gives values to constants which your own references such as Stephen Weinberg account for in any case.
You haven't a clue what you're talking about.
Babbling pseudoscience like that merely shows how little you do know or understand about the subject.
That is your blind ignorance out of a lack of education.
Some say there is an appearance of fine tuning which is only an impression drawn from the same science you called speculation.
If Multiverse is pure speculation as you called it, then by the exact same standard, so is any alleged fine tuning.
It's conjectured from the very same science.
They used no such thing as 20 constants fine tuned to 30 decimal places to find Higgs. The Standard Model gives values to constants which your own references such as Stephen Weinberg account for in any case.
You haven't a clue what you're talking about.
Babbling pseudoscience like that merely shows how little you do know or understand about the subject.
That is your blind ignorance out of a lack of education.
Some say there is an appearance of fine tuning which is only an impression drawn from the same science you called speculation.
If Multiverse is pure speculation as you called it, then by the exact same standard, so is any alleged fine tuning.
It's conjectured from the very same science.
1. unsolicited? I was responding to your insults.
2. The multiverse is conjecture...
since you never provide any support for you bs I will just reference the Economist article about finding the Higgs again.
http://www.economist.com/node/21558248
The constant gardener
One problem is that, as it stands, the model requires its 20 or so constants to be exactly what they are to an uncomfortable 32 decimal places. Insert different values and the upshot is nonsensical predictions, like phenomena occurring with a likelihood of more than 100%.
Nature could, of course, turn out to be this fastidious. But physicists have learned to take the need for such fine-tuning, as the precision fiddling is known in the argot, as a sign that something important is missing from their picture of the world.
2. The multiverse is conjecture...
since you never provide any support for you bs I will just reference the Economist article about finding the Higgs again.
http://www.economist.com/node/21558248
The constant gardener
One problem is that, as it stands, the model requires its 20 or so constants to be exactly what they are to an uncomfortable 32 decimal places. Insert different values and the upshot is nonsensical predictions, like phenomena occurring with a likelihood of more than 100%.
Nature could, of course, turn out to be this fastidious. But physicists have learned to take the need for such fine-tuning, as the precision fiddling is known in the argot, as a sign that something important is missing from their picture of the world.
Quote from stu:
See? Another unsolicited ad hom. You can't help yourself.
They used no such thing as 20 constants fine tuned to 30 decimal places to find Higgs. The Standard Model gives values to constants which your own references such as Stephen Weinberg account for in any case.
You haven't a clue what you're talking about.
Babbling pseudoscience like that merely shows how little you do know or understand about the subject.
That is your blind ignorance out of a lack of education.
Some say there is an appearance of fine tuning which is only an impression drawn from the same science you called speculation.
If Multiverse is pure speculation as you called it, then by the exact same standard, so is any alleged fine tuning.
It's conjectured from the very same science.