The multiverse as a scientific concept — part II

2 thoughts on “The multiverse as a scientific concept — part II”

1. I have commented on this at Scientia Salon (at http://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/06/05/the-multiverse-as-a-scientific-concept-part-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-3158 ). My point is that the S-multiverse (with different physics laws and nature constants) is totally wrong.

   In that comment, I did not provide links which are related to that is. As you are reblog that post here, I would like to add some relevant links here as a complementary for that comment.

   For dark mass, also see http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/09/16/a-quantum-gravity-cosmology-conference/#comment-86056

   For dark energy, see http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/09/19/am-i-misleading-you-about-string-theory/#comment-87311

   For dark mass and dark energy, see http://physicsfocus.org/katie-mack-space-station-ams-detector-has-not-found-dark-matter-despite-what-some-media-reports-say/#comment-3232 and http://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2013/09/25/dark-energy-mystery-no-more/

   For ‘string unification, see http://michellejoelle.wordpress.com/2014/06/02/philosophy-a-fruitless-endeavor/comment-page-1/#comment-502

   For multiverse, see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/10/multiverse-bubbles-are-now-all-burst-by.html and
   http://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2014/04/22/turing-computer-vs-boltzmann-brains/ and
   http://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2014/02/18/damage-control-for-the-multiverse/

   For fine-tuning issue, see http://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2013/09/02/key-mission-of-life/

   LikeLike

   Reply

   1. Tienzen,
      My apologies. Just discovered your comment in the mod queue.

      LikeLike

      Reply