Hi Jason,

Nothing "in the theory" suggests that landscapes are a problem! But that is kinda my point, we have to use meta-theories of one sort or another to evaluate theories. Occam's Razor is a nice example... My point is that explanations should be hard to vary and get the result that one needs to "match the data" or else it is not an explanation at all. One can get anything they want with a theory that has landscapes. Look!

"The string theory landscape or anthropic landscape refers to the large number of possible false vacua in string theory. The "landscape" includes so many possible configurations that some physicists think that the known laws of physics, the standard model and general relativity with a positive cosmological constant, occur in at least one of them. The anthropic landscape refers to the collection of those portions of the landscape that are suitable for supporting human life, an application of the anthropic principle that selects a subset of the theoretically possible configurations. In string theory the number of false vacua is commonly quoted as 10500. The large number of possibilities arises from different choices of Calabi-Yau manifolds and different values of generalized magnetic fluxes over different homology cycles. If one assumes that there is no structure in the space of vacua, the problem of finding one with a sufficiently small cosmological constant is NP complete, being a version of the subset sum problem."

    Boom, there it is! The computation problem!

On 8/22/2012 2:31 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
What in the theory suggests that landscapes are a problem? Is there any evidence in any theory that only one possible set of physical laws has to pervade all of existence, or is this just an unsupported preconception/hope of physicists who've spent a big chunk of their lives looking for a unique theory?

To me, the effort of finding some mathematical explanation for why only one set of physical law can be is a lot like the Copenhagen theory's attempt to rescue a single history, despite that nothing in the theory or the math would suggest as much.


On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Richard Ruquist <yann...@gmail.com <mailto:yann...@gmail.com>> wrote:


    I solved the landscape problem by assuming that each monad was
    consistent with the astronomical observations that the hyperfine
    varied monotonically across the universe.

    On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Stephen P. King
    <stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:

        On 8/21/2012 3:58 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
         Steinberg P. Soft Physics from RHIC to the LHC.
         arXiv:nucl-ex/09031471, 2009.

         Kovtum PK, Son DT & Starinets AO. Viscosity in Strongly
        Interacting Quantum
        Field Theories from Black Hole Physics. arXiv:hep-th/0405231.

            Good! Now to see if there any any other possible
        explanations that do not have the landscape problem...

        On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Stephen P. King
        <stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:

            On 8/21/2012 3:39 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
            String theory predicts the viscosity of the quark-gluon
            already found at the LHC and several other sites.

            Hi Richard,

                Could you link some sources on this?

            On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Stephen P. King
            <stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>>

                On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote:
                On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
                Hi guys,
                Neither CYM's nor strings physically
                exist-- instead, they represent things that exist.
                Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical,
                although the equations
                might describe something physical.

The equations of string theory describe strings. So how does it follow that strings aren't real. That's like saying a sentence that describes my
                house shows that my house isn't real.

                I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is
                a model of reality and not reality itself.  But, if
                it's correct, it refers to reality or at least some
                part of reality - like, "My house is green." refers
                to a part of reality, but "My house is blue." does not.


                    When and if string theory makes a prediction
                that is then found to have a physical demonstration
                we might be more confident that it is useful as a
                physics theory and not just an exercise in beautiful
                advanced mathematics. The LHC is looking for such

                For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main
                Street is not my house,
                it is my address.
                Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net



"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to