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 stu:
1. unsolicited?
Yes. You've started with the ad homs, contrary to your claims.
2. The multiverse is conjecture...
So 'fine tuning' is conjecture too. duh.
Its the fine tuning of our universe not the the multiverse... einstein.
Two separate concepts. One is unproven speculation.
As Guth and the Susskind video explained.
The other involves our universe and the observed extreme fine tuning.
again if you do not understand watch the Susskind video he explains the knife's edge fine tuning.
If you watch it enough, even a 1950s random chance believer can learn something.
The Standard Model requires mathematical calculations to be introduced so that predictions can be made from it. Were the Standard Model complete, values of those parameters would be determined by the model itself.
The Cosmological Constant is one such mathematical calculation.
Saying something appears fine tuned because it is not precisely zero is used simply an expression. Susskind talks only of that appearance.
Saying it "IS incredibly fine tuned" as you do, is simply an ignorant remark.
There is no "observed fine tuning". There is no science that establishes the universe IS fine tuned
The Cosmological Constant is one such mathematical calculation.
Saying something appears fine tuned because it is not precisely zero is used simply an expression. Susskind talks only of that appearance.
Saying it "IS incredibly fine tuned" as you do, is simply an ignorant remark.
There is no "observed fine tuning". There is no science that establishes the universe IS fine tuned
you keep manifesting your lack of understanding. your arguments require faith in the model as if it were faith in God.
Susskind explained in his video that he and the other early pioneers of string theory were hoping to find such a universal and complete model.
He also explained on video even then a universal model might not explain away the "why" of the extreme fine tuning.
Weinberg explained that as well.
Regarding your discussion about the cosmological constant being small but not zero. Your argument is absurd.
If the constant were different say zero... the universe would crush. Your argument about it not be zero is ignorant.
a cosmological constant of zero would be a disaster.
You do not seem to understand that when something is tuned to 120 decimal places it means change it buy a millionth or a billionth or a trillionth or anything else except the 120 ish decimal place and the universe fails.
Susskind explained in his video that he and the other early pioneers of string theory were hoping to find such a universal and complete model.
He also explained on video even then a universal model might not explain away the "why" of the extreme fine tuning.
Weinberg explained that as well.
Regarding your discussion about the cosmological constant being small but not zero. Your argument is absurd.
If the constant were different say zero... the universe would crush. Your argument about it not be zero is ignorant.
a cosmological constant of zero would be a disaster.
You do not seem to understand that when something is tuned to 120 decimal places it means change it buy a millionth or a billionth or a trillionth or anything else except the 120 ish decimal place and the universe fails.
Quote from stu:
The Standard Model requires mathematical calculations to be introduced so that predictions can be made from it. Were the Standard Model complete, values of those parameters would be determined by the model itself.
The Cosmological Constant is one such mathematical calculation.
Saying something appears fine tuned because it is not precisely zero is used simply an expression. Susskind talks only of that appearance.
Saying it "IS incredibly fine tuned" as you do, is simply an ignorant remark.
There is no "observed fine tuning". There is no science that establishes the universe IS fine tuned
There is no science that states the cosmological constant cannot change by "a millionth or a billionth or a trillionth". It may come as a surprise to you but making shit up like that is not science. It shows again how little you understand.
Physics also has "your something that is tuned to 120 decimal places" at 108 places or 123 or 128 places . The cosmological constant could change to zero yet, or not be needed at all. All calculations are made from incomplete equations.
In Quantum mechanics, specifically quantum field theory, the cosmological constant is a problem to be solved. The problem being, there should be either one of only two natural values to give it. Very small/zero, or very large.
Einstein set it to zero to restrict his theory of relativity, which contrary to another appearance - that of a static universe- stated the universe is expanding, or at least contains galaxies which move apart.
The problem is to understand why very large cosmological values suggested by quantum field theory are not what is seen in the observable universe. The cosmological constant has an appearance of being very small. Quantum theory says it should be very large. 108 places or 130 places being way too small.
Giving the cosmological constant tiny values to hundreds of decimal places, does not make those values provable or consistent with quantum field theory.
Cosmological constant is the repulsive force of gravity. No one knows yet what the value of that is. Discoveries in dark energy could remove the need for it altogether.
In nature, inexplicable values may appear finely-tuned for a while until they eventually become explicable. Then all of a sudden, they no longer appear finely-tuned.
"the extreme fine tuning" is a figment of your imagination.
Physics also has "your something that is tuned to 120 decimal places" at 108 places or 123 or 128 places . The cosmological constant could change to zero yet, or not be needed at all. All calculations are made from incomplete equations.
In Quantum mechanics, specifically quantum field theory, the cosmological constant is a problem to be solved. The problem being, there should be either one of only two natural values to give it. Very small/zero, or very large.
Einstein set it to zero to restrict his theory of relativity, which contrary to another appearance - that of a static universe- stated the universe is expanding, or at least contains galaxies which move apart.
The problem is to understand why very large cosmological values suggested by quantum field theory are not what is seen in the observable universe. The cosmological constant has an appearance of being very small. Quantum theory says it should be very large. 108 places or 130 places being way too small.
Giving the cosmological constant tiny values to hundreds of decimal places, does not make those values provable or consistent with quantum field theory.
Cosmological constant is the repulsive force of gravity. No one knows yet what the value of that is. Discoveries in dark energy could remove the need for it altogether.
In nature, inexplicable values may appear finely-tuned for a while until they eventually become explicable. Then all of a sudden, they no longer appear finely-tuned.
"the extreme fine tuning" is a figment of your imagination.
boy is your brain confused.
you are mixing and matching models and theories like you just read some website but you have no idea what is real or what is theory....
hey we all know science can change and evolve... but you either accept the models scientists are currently using or you caveat all your statements... with... in my view... or in the stu's bizzaro world of moving constants... the cc could be x.
what don't do stu is make bullshit pronouncements and hold them out as real. That is what trolls do.
-----
listen to susskind at...
at about 4 mins 50 s...
he tells you you are dead ass wrong...
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2cT4zZIHR3s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
you are mixing and matching models and theories like you just read some website but you have no idea what is real or what is theory....
hey we all know science can change and evolve... but you either accept the models scientists are currently using or you caveat all your statements... with... in my view... or in the stu's bizzaro world of moving constants... the cc could be x.
what don't do stu is make bullshit pronouncements and hold them out as real. That is what trolls do.
-----
listen to susskind at...
at about 4 mins 50 s...
he tells you you are dead ass wrong...
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2cT4zZIHR3s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Quote from stu:
There is no science that states the cosmological constant cannot change by "a millionth or a billionth or a trillionth". It may come as a surprise to you but making shit up like that is not science. It shows again how little you understand.
Physics also has "your something that is tuned to 120 decimal places" at 108 places or 123 or 128 places . The cosmological constant could change to zero yet, or not be needed at all. All calculations are made from incomplete equations.
In Quantum mechanics, specifically quantum field theory, the cosmological constant is a problem to be solved. The problem being, there should be either one of only two natural values to give it. Very small/zero, or very large.
Einstein set it to zero to restrict his theory of relativity, which contrary to another appearance - that of a static universe- stated the universe is expanding, or at least contains galaxies which move apart.
The problem is to understand why very large cosmological values suggested by quantum field theory are not what is seen in the observable universe. The cosmological constant has an appearance of being very small. Quantum theory says it should be very large. 108 places or 130 places being way too small.
Giving the cosmological constant tiny values to hundreds of decimal places, does not make those values provable or consistent with quantum field theory.
Cosmological constant is the repulsive force of gravity. No one knows yet what the value of that is. Discoveries in dark energy could remove the need for it altogether.
In nature, inexplicable values may appear finely-tuned for a while until they eventually become explicable. Then all of a sudden, they no longer appear finely-tuned.
"the extreme fine tuning" is a figment of your imagination.
Quote from jem:
boy is your brain confused.
you are mixing and matching models and theories like you just read some website but you have no idea what is real or what is theory....
hey we all know science can change and evolve... but you either accept the models scientists are currently using or you caveat all your statements... with... in my view... or in the stu's bizzaro world of moving constants... the cc could be x.
what don't do stu is make bullshit pronouncements and hold them out as real. That is what trolls do.
-----
listen to susskind at...
at about 4 mins 50 s...
he tells you you are dead ass wrong...
"you are mixing and matching models and theories like you just read some website but you have no idea what is real or what is theory...."
There you go, projecting your own tactics again.
"but you either accept the models scientists are currently using...."
....you are accepting Susskind's cosmological constant / multiverse model?
You treat a cosmological constant figure he gives as fact, but a Multiverse as pure speculation. You just "mix and match" the things you like and don't like to accept.
Einstein says the cosmological constant is zero. Susskind says 123 decimal places , others say 108 to around 130 decimal places.
Depending discoveries on dark energy , the cosmological constant could be disposed of altogether or left at 0.
Not a case of me disagreeing with science or scientists. A case of you not reasoning.
The kind of 'fine tuning' you want to misinterpret what are incomplete mathematical equations into, just doesn't exist in science.
"make bullshit pronouncements and hold them out as real. That is what trolls do."
Self-analysis grants you that status.
I present scientists and science.
you, stu, just spout b.s. off the top of your head.
are you still arguing that the cosmological constant could be zero or negative in our universe...
or have you learned something but watching the videos.
are you still arguing that hawking specifically did not include a multiverse... or have you finally understood his paper.
you, stu, just spout b.s. off the top of your head.
are you still arguing that the cosmological constant could be zero or negative in our universe...
or have you learned something but watching the videos.
are you still arguing that hawking specifically did not include a multiverse... or have you finally understood his paper.
Quote from jem:
Stu your entire argument is based on your troll ignorance.
You have been lying about this science for 5 years.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2cT4zZIHR3s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
What you present is untrue and distorted claims and comments you can't reason.Quote from jem:
I present scientists and science.
you, stu, just spout b.s. off the top of your head.
are you still arguing that the cosmological constant could be zero or negative in our universe...
or have you learned something but watching the videos.
are you still arguing that hawking specifically did not include a multiverse... or have you finally understood his paper.
Hawking does not mention the word multiverse in the paper you've referred to let alone base his science on it .
Susskind does not say there IS any fine tuning in the video no matter how many times you keep posting it. Still accepting what Susskind says and not accepting what he says at the same time are you ?
As far as the cosmological constant goes, like the other items, you obviously don't understand what you're talking about otherwise you wouldn't post what you do.
Quote from stu:
What you present is untrue and distorted claims and comments you can't reason.
Hawking does not mention the word multiverse in the paper you've referred to let alone base his science on it .
Susskind does not say there IS any fine tuning in the video no matter how many times you keep posting it. Still accepting what Susskind says and not accepting what he says at the same time are you ?
As far as the cosmological constant goes, like the other items, you obviously don't understand what you're talking about otherwise you wouldn't post what you do.
I present full papers and I present video tape.
you lie and make stuff up.
For instance why don't you show us some science saying the cosmological constant in our universe can go to zero.
Oh you forgot about that misrepresentation already.
1. the name of Hawking paper is Populating the Landscape.
in the paper they speaks of populating some of the vacua.
They also wrote 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 tell you at around 11 minutes... the landscape is a multiverse.
2. Susskind explains to you early in the tape there is knifes edge fine tuning.