Laetoli footprints (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, April 12, 2010, 17:32 (5148 days ago) @ David Turell


> > The fine-tuned universe that David references resolves around the fact that many properties of the universe, had they gone one way or another would have resulted in a dead universe. (I and several cosmologists dispute this.) One problem that gets solved in a many-universes scenario is this one--if you have infinitely many universes you are guaranteed to get one like ours, no God required for direct intervention.
> 
> The problem with this approach is it will be total fiction until string theory is proven. Multiuniverse is pie-in-the-sky, and can never be proven if this universe has a finite edge bent back on itself. Who are the reputable cosmologists in dispute? Please don't use Stenger. He is a wack job.-You seem to have forgotten that the "many worlds" interpretation is rooted in current quantum mechanics--and has nothing at all to do with String Theory. -(Though I will repost this:)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090706113702.htm
If String Theory starts to have more successes like this in explaining phenomenon untouched by the Copenhagen Interpretation--I think you'll start to see more experimental physicists aligning with theoretical physicists. (Right now 9/10 of new theoretical physicists grads study String Theory.) -There's two views in physics that have a fairly equal number of supporters--consistent histories, and many worlds. Seth Lloyd is consistent histories. (And so am I.) I think Brian Greene is many-worlds, as is those physicists named on the wikipedia page for "many worlds interpretation." -Both views try to solve the problem of how a single photon appears in two places at once. Neither is necessarily experimentally valid (which is why they're called interpretations.) But both strive to explain physical phenomenon--both without resorting to strings. (Strings just solve the problem of a quantum theory of gravity.)

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"