Richard Dawkins, Famed Atheist, Supports Free Bibles In Schools

http://www.popsci.com/science/artic...inning-string-theory-and-answer-why-were-here


But now the LHC data, which physicists say are more precise than Tevatron’s, does not show this matter-decay deviation. This, in turn, could mean there is no supersymmetry; no squarks or selectrons. We are not going to attempt to delve into the physics of this — check out the LHCb experiment and Quantum Diaries posts if you’re interested in the nuts and bolts.
This will be disappointing to some theorists, because supersymmetry provides a handy answer to many troubling physics questions. At high energies, it unifies electromagnetism with the weak and strong nuclear forces, and in some iterations, the theory provides a candidate for dark matter, in the form of a stable heavy particle like a neutralino. Supersymmetry is also an essential characteristic of string theory, which for now is the only widely accepted theory that unifies quantum mechanics and relativity.
In a story about this over at the BBC, Nobel Prize-winning physicist George Smoot called supersymmetry “an extremely beautiful model.”
“It’s got symmetry, it’s super and it's been taught in Europe for decades as the correct model because it is so beautiful,” he said. “But there's no experimental data to say that it is correct.”
So what does this mean? It’s not entirely over, as the BBC points out — there are a few versions of supersymmetry, which are more complex than the basic mass-energy level version that has apparently just been ruled out. So different flavors of supersymmetry could still be true. But it could also mean supersymmetry is just wrong, and if that’s the case, physicists will have to come up with some big new ideas.

 

Jem, do you understand anything of the text blocks that you keep copying?

 

...then you ignore what they otherwise say.
Because you're only interested in blindly swallowing, not even querying, selected cut and paste sound bite text a religious website has ripped out of context, to make wrong claims against.

I said - you don't understand the missing, though essential, density function.
The intelligent design/creationist has Penrose making a calculation in a video that mathematically he cannot possibly be making as a mathematician.

That should ring alarm bells if you were at all interested in getting at the facts. You're not.
You want a tuner/creator/intelligent designer/god , so you just keep trolling out the same vid whilst untruthfully claiming to be relying on what experts say.

...you mean when Prof Susskind said the universe appears fine tuned...but isn't.

...you mean when 'Prof emeritus Hawking' said.... " Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.....Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.....It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

To an intelligent design/creationist , none of this is about explanation. It's all to do with not understanding, and a fundamental deceit in trying to stuff religion into places it won't go and doesn't belong.

 

You love to distort...

1. susskind said the universe appears fine tune but there may be an explanation....

he also said...(and I have told you this many times.)


"If, for some unforseen reason, the landscape [i.e., the many-universes version of string theory] turns out to be inconsistent — maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation — I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. "

2. Hawking conditioned your quote on top down cosomology coupled with a multiverse.

 

and oh yea... wtf are you talking about. Penrose can't be making calculations.

you have been practicing the big lie for a while now... but you are really going off the reservation.

 

So what after all this time has induced you to write that, instead of what one would normally expect from you, which is to abruptly halt that sentence half way through ....."susskind said the universe appears fine tuned" ...in order to falsely try to infer a tuner/designer/creator on behalf of science in general?

From Dark Side, turning are you.

You don't tell me anything. You make me laugh that's all.

...he also said the explanation can't be God; "The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design"
So when he acquiesces to a God interviewer, on a God website, that God is an explanation, you're missing something on the lines of either, the authority YOU refer to as a great mind of science is contradicting himself, OR you are taking things out of their context. It'll be the latter won't it.

How many more times. Hawking does no such thing. Top-down cosmology is not coupled with the existence of a multiverse. Top down is the method being proposed for allowing scientific enquiry in areas like string theory where it would otherwise not be available.

 

Read again what I said, stop responding like a 12 year old, if you can.

 

1. give a cite to your bullshit about penrose ... not your bullshit.. but something penrose wrote or said...

2.providing the title to the book as support for your bullshit is comedy.
I provided a links to the videos and papers you provide a titles.

you are complete troll but you are entertaining.


here is the truth about mutliverses and susskind...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/b...w/15powell.html

Although string theory resists translation into ordinary language, its central conceit boils down to this: All the different particles and forces in the universe are composed of wriggling strands of energy whose properties depend solely on the mode of their vibration. Understand the properties of those strands, the thinking once went, and you will understand why the universe is the way it is. Recent work, most notably by Joseph Polchinski of the University of California, Santa Barbara, has dashed that hope. The latest version of string theory (now rechristened M-theory for reasons that even the founder of M-theory cannot explain) does not yield a single model of physics. Rather, it yields a gargantuan number of models: about 10500, give or take a few trillion.

Not one to despair over lemons, Susskind finds lemonade in that insane-sounding result. He proposes that those 10500 possibilities represent not a flaw in string theory but a profound insight into the nature of reality. Each potential model, he suggests, corresponds to an actual place - another universe as real as our own. In the spirit of kooky science and good science fiction, he coins new names to go with these new possibilities. He calls the enormous range of environments governed by all the possible laws of physics the "Landscape." The near-infinite collection of pocket universes described by those various laws becomes the "megaverse."

Susskind eagerly embraces the megaverse interpretation because it offers a way to blow right through the intelligent design challenge...

 

On a side note is Christopher hitchens dead yet?

Those rabid atheists crack me up.

 

I really have no idea how someone like you could enjoy being such an ignorant liar. Can you fucking read the last sentence hawking and hartle wrote.... .

"whereas in top down cosmology one envisions a set of alternative universes"


http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf

The top down approach we have described leads to a profoundly different viewof cosmology, and the relation between cause and effect. Top down cosmology is a framework in which one essentially traces the histories backwards, from a spacelike surface at the present time. The no boundary histories of the universe thus depend on what is being observed, contrary to the usual idea that the universe has a unique,
observer independent history. In some sense no boundary initial conditions represent a sum over all possible initial states. This is in sharp contrast with the bottom-up approach, where one assumes there is a single history with a well defined starting point and evolution. Our comparison with eternal inflation provides a clear illustration of
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.