Why Some Scientists Embrace the 'Multiverse

[jem]

If you were not an ignorant troll you would understand what this sentence means..

let me break down what Hawking is saying for your ignorance.


"In particular a
bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of
the universe that is carefully fine-tuned [10] - 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."



classical physics... the standard model... the only science that has been tested and proven... the bottom up approach... shows our universe is tuned as if prescribed by an outside agency... or you can speculate about an unproven idea of eternal inflation.

Quote from stu:

Simple. You're ignorant and wrong.
They don't say "our universe is finely tuned for life".

The question for scientists is, as it has always been, how are things the way they are.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
If you were not an ignorant troll you would understand what this sentence means..

let me break down what Hawking is saying for your ignorance.

"In particular a
bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of
the universe that is carefully fine-tuned [10] - 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."

classical physics... the standard model... the only science that has been tested and proven... the bottom up approach... shows our universe is tuned as if prescribed by an outside agency... or you can speculate about an unproven idea of eternal inflation.

Lol. Yet another weird twist in your repertoire of sheer ignorance, dissembling and misinformation around cut & paste quotes you don't understand.

The standard model is not 'the bottom up approach' you goof.

The standard model is the explanation of how the fundamental particles of matter interact, controlled by the four fundamental forces.
Whether the standard model is looked at from a bottom-up or top-down approach, makes no difference to those core essential facts which form the standard model.

Based upon the standard model it is scientific extrapolation that attracts either a bottom-up or top-down approach. Big Bang is bottom-up, arrived at using the standard model.

Stephen Hawking proposes top-down, that is, to start from today (top-down) rather than starting from big bang (bottom-up) which is itself arrived at from applying the conditions observed in the standard model.
He is of course also using the standard model.

Still I suppose, if you did have anything like a clue about the subject you wouldn't come out with the bullshit you do.

 

[jem]

you just wrote two paragraphs of bullshit... pretending I wrote something I did not yet in the end could not deny what I wrote is true.

I already went over this with you.
The standard model shows the fine tuning of our universe.

you remember how I had to disabuse of your silly notions when they confirmed the Higgs....

Here is what the economist worte. Explaining how the fine tuings are confirmed.

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:

Lol. Yet another weird twist in your repertoire of sheer ignorance, dissembling and misinformation around cut & paste quotes you don't understand.

The standard model is not 'the bottom up approach' you goof.

The standard model is the explanation of how the fundamental particles of matter interact, controlled by the four fundamental forces.
Whether the standard model is looked at from a bottom-up or top-down approach, makes no difference to those core essential facts which form the standard model.

Based upon the standard model it is scientific extrapolation that attracts either a bottom-up or top-down approach. Big Bang is bottom-up, arrived at using the standard model.

Stephen Hawking proposes top-down, that is, to start from today (top-down) rather than starting from big bang (bottom-up) which is itself arrived at from applying the conditions observed in the standard model.
He is of course also using the standard model.

Still I suppose, if you did have anything like a clue about the subject you wouldn't come out with the bullshit you do.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
you just wrote two paragraphs of bullshit... pretending I wrote something I did not yet in the end could not deny what I wrote is true.

There's no pretence on my part and the evidence confirms the bullshit is all of your own making. This is what you posted just previously....

• "classical physics... the standard model... the only science that has been tested and proven... the bottom up approach..."

Are you denying you posted it? The standard model is not 'the bottom up approach'.

Quote from jem:
I already went over this with you.
The standard model shows the fine tuning of our universe.

yeah in utter ignorance you keep saying it, but it doesn't make it true.

Quote from jem:
you remember how I had to disabuse of your silly notions when they confirmed the Higgs....

Here is what the economist worte. Explaining how the fine tuings are confirmed.

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."

pfft... disabused me?... more like you're only abusing yourself.

Non of that changes a thing and doesn't confirm anything IS the result of any fine tunings. That much is down to your delsuion.

The standard model explains how the elementary particles interact with the elementary forces. Period.
The standard model does not contain any so called fine tuning any more than it contains the big bang.

The why and how '20 or so constants need to be exactly what they are' is not part of the standard model itself. Further physics supports the standard model or further physics is itself supported by the standard model.

And as it says right there... fine-tuning is used as jargon. A term to represent an incomplete picture.


While you would like to add all sorts of ridiculous unsupportable non-scientific superstitious crap onto the term fine-tuning, it's nevertheless not going to mean anything and has nothing to do with science you quite obviously don't know anything much about. Although you do like to pretend while making a total prick of yourself.

 

[jem]

you keep writing bullshit and rewriting the meaning of what I typed.

So lets go over this again.... troll...

Did the scientists at cern use math to find the location of the evidence of the Higgs Boson?

If so what are the constants used in the standard model.
And how many decimals places are those constants set to.

Quote from stu:

There's no pretence on my part and the evidence confirms the bullshit is all of your own making. This is what you posted just previously....

• "classical physics... the standard model... the only science that has been tested and proven... the bottom up approach..."

Are you denying you posted it? The standard model is not 'the bottom up approach'.


yeah in utter ignorance you keep saying it, but it doesn't make it true.



pfft... disabused me?... more like you're only abusing yourself.

Non of that changes a thing and doesn't confirm anything IS the result of any fine tunings. That much is down to your delsuion.

The standard model explains how the elementary particles interact with the elementary forces. Period.
The standard model does not contain any so called fine tuning any more than it contains the big bang.

The why and how '20 or so constants need to be exactly what they are' is not part of the standard model itself. Further physics supports the standard model or further physics is itself supported by the standard model.

And as it says right there... fine-tuning is used as jargon. A term to represent an incomplete picture.


While you would like to add all sorts of ridiculous unsupportable non-scientific superstitious crap onto the term fine-tuning, it's nevertheless not going to mean anything and has nothing to do with science you quite obviously don't know anything much about. Although you do like to pretend while making a total prick of yourself.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
you keep writing bullshit and rewriting the meaning of what I typed.

So lets go over this again.... troll...

Did the scientists at cern use math to find the location of the evidence of the Higgs Boson?

If so what are the constants used in the standard model.
And how many decimals places are those constants set to.

Rewriting the meaning?... sad thing is as you worm around, you really mustn't realize how much you're embarrassing yourself.

Now another change of direction. I suggest you come to terms with the fact that all these wrong assumptions you are so attracted to only lead up the creek towards even more nonsensical circular bullshit like the above.

So just to be clear, you do realize now, the standard model is not and does not require taking a bottom-up approach when examining the universe.

Does not mean

• ... "classical physics... the standard model... the only science that has been tested and proven... the bottom up approach...shows our universe is tuned as if prescribed by an outside agency... or you can speculate about an unproven idea of eternal inflation...."

...as you wrongly insist and is not what Stephen Hawking states.

A top-down or bottom-up approach can be used with the standard model.
There is no such requirement whatsoever to say the standard model requires that the universe.. "is tuned as if prescribed by an outside agency" ....or that the standard model requires speculating eternal inflation.

The standard model does not require that the universe is fine-tuned.

Or in other words...however many decimals you are astounded by in trying to pretend it does, you're talking bullshit.

 

[jem]

you keep rewriting bullshit. "does not require" what troll misdirection. (its very clever troll bullshit.)

How did the scientists at CERN predict they would find evidence of the Higgs Boson.

Did they use math? Did they use the Standard Model?

Stu... as of now how many constants are in the Standard model of physics? Is the answer more than 20 Stu



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:

Rewriting the meaning?... sad thing is as you worm around, you really mustn't realize how much you're embarrassing yourself.

Now another change of direction. I suggest you come to terms with the fact that all these wrong assumptions you are so attracted to only lead up the creek towards even more nonsensical circular bullshit like the above.

So just to be clear, you do realize now, the standard model is not and does not require taking a bottom-up approach when examining the universe.

Does not mean

• ... "classical physics... the standard model... the only science that has been tested and proven... the bottom up approach...shows our universe is tuned as if prescribed by an outside agency... or you can speculate about an unproven idea of eternal inflation...."

...as you wrongly insist and is not what Stephen Hawking states.

A top-down or bottom-up approach can be used with the standard model.
There is no such requirement whatsoever to say the standard model requires that the universe.. "is tuned as if prescribed by an outside agency" ....or that the standard model requires speculating eternal inflation.

The standard model does not require that the universe is fine-tuned.

Or in other words...however many decimals you are astounded by in trying to pretend it does, you're talking bullshit.

 

[jem]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe


Constants in the standard model and in cosmology[edit]

The original standard model of particle physics from the 1970s contained 19 fundamental dimensionless constants describing the masses of the particles and the strengths of the electroweak and strong forces. In the 1990s, neutrinos were discovered to have nonzero mass, and a quantity called the vacuum angle was found to be indistinguishable from zero.
The complete standard model requires 25 fundamental dimensionless constants (Baez, 2002). At present, their numerical values are not understood in terms any widely accepted theory and are determined only from measurement. These 25 constants are:
the fine structure constant;
the strong coupling constant;
fifteen masses of the fundamental particles (relative to the Planck mass), namely:
six quarks
six leptons
the Higgs boson
the W boson
the Z boson
four parameters of the CKM matrix, describing how quarks oscillate between different forms;
four parameters of the Pontecorvo–Maki–Nakagawa–Sakata matrix, which does the same thing for neutrinos.
[show]Dimensionless constants of the Standard Model
One constant is required for cosmology:
the cosmological constant (in terms of Planck units) of Einstein's equations for general relativity.
Thus, currently there are 26 known fundamental dimensionless physical constants. However, this number may not be the final one. For example, if neutrinos turn out to be Majorana fermions, the Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata matrix has two additional parameters. Secondly, if dark matter is discovered, or if the description of dark energy requires more than the cosmological constant, further fundamental constants will be needed.

 

[Ricter]

Everyone who's following the "discussion" between jem and stu say, "aye".

 

[jem]

I am not sure anyone is reading... but...

for those reading this is the summary.

Stu is lying his ass off to hide these basic facts...


1. the fine tuning of the constants of our universe is recognized by many very top scientists. (I have provided dozens of quotes and some videos proving this fact.)

2. that drives a rabid atheist like Stu crazy because that means there is evidence (not necessarily proof) that there is a Tuner. (Creator).

Therefore... what you are seeing right now is Stu lie or creating mis direction about science to the point he can not even admit the standard model of the universe contains many finely tuned constants.