Talk:Fine-tuned universe/Archive 2

message: What's wrong with no hair? The anon. removed it with take to talk, but he didn't. The idea seems to fit as one extreme, so include it. Vsmith 22:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No hair 

message: It is a fundamental part of quantum mechanics that particles pop into and out of existence all the time without a creator being any part of the physics equations (see creation and annihilation operators) that describe this and all other known particle behaviors.
The summary of Origin of the Universe as a quantum tunneling event in Phys. Rev. D 25, 2065–2073 (1982) says "We present a nonsingular model of cosmogenesis in which the Universe arises as a result of quantum-mechanical barrier penetration. The Universe is described throughout its evolution by a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) metric, and the matter distribution by a perfect fluid, whose equation of state is chosen so as to allow the tunneling to occur. Cosmic evolution proceeds in three stages; an initial static spacetime configuration tunnels into a "fireball" state in which particle creation occurs. As the fireball expands, particle creation ends, and the Universe enters the "post-big-bang" epoch of adiabatic expansion. We find that within the context of the FRW ansatz, only a spatially closed universe may originate in this manner. Implications of this creation scheme and possible generalizations are discussed. As a by-product of this investigation we find that the evolution of the Universe is described by a Gellmann-Low equation with the beta function specified by the equation of state." 
In a vacuum state, according to all known data, particles with any arbritrary energy above the vacuum may be created. These virtual particles are included in the definition of the vacuum. There is no evidence for or against a virtual particle with the mass of the universe popping into existence, but a fundamental law of particle behavior is that what can happen does happpen due to the wave nature of all things (see propagator).
In terms of virtual particles, the propagator at spacelike separation can be thought of as a means of calculating the amplitude for creating a virtual particle-antiparticle pair that eventually disappear into the vacuum, or for detecting a virtual pair emerging from the vacuum. In Feynman's language, such creation and annihilation processes are equivalent to a virtual particle wandering backward and forward through time, which can take it outside of the light cone. However, no causality violation is involved.
These facts have led some to postulate a many universes theory or multiverse theory. WAS 4.250 19:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Creation without a creator

message: I noticed the category of pseudoscience has cloaked/decloaked recently. Obviously, the category "pseudoscience" must be applied from the point of view of whatever is considered "mainstream". I know of no pseudoscientific topic whose followers admit it is pseudoscientific. If a topic must be "undisputedly" aggreed to be pseudoscientific to apply the label/category, then the category, obviously, would never be applied. No one thinks their pet project is pseudoscience, so the label must be applied from the point of view of mainstream science. FuelWagon 18:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: category

message: I just wish to note that the section I retitled "Known physical constants" needs a great deal more work. I only took a rough first cut at it. I'm not saying I will work more on it. The pay here is low. And even tho I'm retired, that's a disincentive. Cheers. WAS 4.250 01:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Known physical constants

message: ===Deleted replacement for intro to section===
"Life as we know it would not be possible if the physical constants of the universe were even slightly different from what they are. How many other settings of these constants would produce life as we don't know it is unknown. " WAS 4.250 21:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Naturalism and the fine tuning argument

message: "Life as we know it would not be possible if the physical constants of the universe were even slightly different from what they are. How many other settings of these constants would produce life as we don't know it is unknown. " WAS 4.250 21:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted replacement for intro to section

message: Charles Townes' Nobel prize is not relevant and should not be mentioned in the External Links, any more we should mention the honors and awards that have been given to others in that section (and I know from personal knowledge that some of the other authors have received prestigious honors). If Townes' arguments in that article are good, then they stand on their own, regardless of prizes and honors that he has been awarded. If they are not good, prizes that he has been awarded will not make them any more correct.
For some reason, Creationists have this notion that their arguments will be strengthened by quoting eminent people and mentioning how eminent they are by listing their affiliations with prestigious institutions or their having been awarded prestigious honors. This is nothing but the fallacious appeal to authority. Real scientists simply give the names of the authors when they cite someone's work. They don't even list affiliations (e.g., the university at which they work). 
The citations in WikiPedia should follow this general policy, observed throughout the scholarly world, of citing authors, but not their honors or affiliations. Bill Jefferys 11:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  But wikipedia is for a lay audience, not a group of specialists who can be expected to know others in their area by name.  Tlogmer 14:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, I hadn't read the article either -- I'd thought it was arguing for the opposite point, actually.  But it does address the issue, if tangentally, so I think it should be included (maybe at the bottom of the list rather than the top). Tlogmer 14:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: This article needs a section on symmetry breaking (I do not mean that it should merely be linked to the somewhat flawed WP article on symmetry breaking). Jim62sch 12:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Symmetry Breaking

message: Substituted at 20:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment