erik

the fact that we can not even edit our posts and much less delete them is a pretty big deal to me, never seen any other site doing this, I don't feel safe posting here.

string theory originally predicted sparticles to exist at an energy level lower than the higgs boson's, we detected the higgs boson but we didn't detect any sparticle string theorists have ever since changed their theory to make sparticles pop up at higher energy levels, but at that point it died as a scientific theory since it was no longer falsifiable furthermore the recent observations about the neutron stars fusion once again proved the string theory predictions wrong, the event GW170817 showed high consistency between GW and EMW, whereas string theory claims there are hidden dimensions where only gravity can go, which should have resulted in inconsistencies between GW and EMW

String theorists truly have hurt science. I wish I could talk to one of them right now and tell them "hey look at what you did with your rubbish" even a decade after your theory was proven wrong we still get people breaking our balls with your fine tuned rubbish because all they see through their bias is "omg science proved god".

The source given to claim that the constants are improbable is not a scientific paper but a philosophical paper. Which makes sense since the whole idea is nonscientific. The science of probabilities requires multiple occurrences and in the case of the universe as a whole, there is only one occurrence, so you can not make any valid scientific claim regarding the probability of it constants. Honestly this whole discussion should be moved to the philosophy or theology forums because there isn't any scientific background to back it up at this time.

Excellent video which sums up the futility of finetunists. if you could get teleported to a random spot in the universe, the chance for you to die instantly on arrival would be 99,999999999...% and even if you added a sextillion of 9 after the comma you still would be far from how ridiculous your chance to survive is Even if you got spawned on a random spot of the planet earth you'd instantly burn to a crisp under the surface 99,99999999......% of the time. By the way all that fine tuning rubbish which is not part of science (I can't stress it enough) comes from string theorists, and was used as a way to promote the multiverse, because some believed the multiverse was a strong prediction of the string theory. All of that nonsense was developed long before the string theory was proven wrong through experimentation at the LHC. I am not really surprised that over a decade later, medias still push that thing.

At last you clarify your question. The idea that the constants could have been different is not part of science, it can not be tested, it can not be falsified, it predicts nothing. It is just a "what if" fantasy. It's just like wondering what if Thanos won. It's not part of science. It's just fantasy. Since the constant couldn't have been different, the universe was not fine tuned for life, it was not fine tuned at all. Due to our natural anthropocentrism, we could believe that life is a special thing, but it is not. Your body is made from the exact same atoms as those found in a stone. Life is nothing more than a byproduct of natural selection. Much like symmetry, commutativity or entropy, what we know as natural selection is a set of mathematical concepts which are deeper that the constants of the universe. These concepts don't require any fine tuning in order to exist.

God and the multiverse are not part of science. If you care only about science, you should dismiss all that "fine tuned" rubbish and leave it to vain philosophers and theologians.

Here's another way to put it. If you make a claim and can not provide a way to test whether it's real or not, then it is nonscientific. Claiming the constants could be different is a claim made without any proof, it is a claim that does not make any prediction, it is a claim that can not be tested in any way. It is not part of science, period. As for Leonard Susskind, please don't even get me started. It is a problem for at least two reasons. First it is nonscientific as I posted above. When a claim is made without any way to test whether it's real or not, it simply isn't part of science. Secondly, an important trait of the scientific method is to try to be as objective as possible. Anthropocentrism is a bias, and as such it is a problem. To clarify the above point about anthropocentrism being a bias, we humans instinctively believe that we are the center of the universe because it's a trait acquired through natural selection which has helped us survive. One who naturally believes he is the center of the universe is more likely to survive than one who believes he is irrelevant in the universe. Being advantageous, that trait did spread among "conscious" living beings. However that natural bias has hindered scientific progress, so we had to learn to get past it, in order to benefit from scientific progress.

It is too anthropocentric. The idea behind a fine-tuned universe is that a superior entity, like a God, created the universe with the exact parameters that would lead to the existence of life (and by extension mankind). It is derived from philosophers like Leibniz who believed that God created the best of all possible worlds. Just like the multiverse theories, it is nonscientific because it can not be refuted. A serious scientist knows that when we measure a constant (such as the Newtonian constant of gravitation) then there is no reason to believe its value could have been different, and there is no reason to believe that there are other universes that have a different value for that constant. All that rubbish is nonscientific. There is only one value, the one we measure, period.

This is a good point actually, since gravitational waves have recently been confirmed to travel at the speed of light with extremely high accuracy, I have to add a graviton field to my model. When I think about it, it makes even more sense now since the graviton would play exactly the same role as photons in the entropy of a gas. Moreover spacetime could emerge from the interaction between higgs and graviton fields, just like the electromagnetic field emerges from the interaction between eletrons and photons respective fields. The higgs field would generate time and the graviton field would generate space. Sadly I can not edit my post above. Why? Can a mod edit the post above for me or do I have to start a new topic?

Any attempt to build a quantum gravity model requires a boson that carries gravity. But the properties of that boson depends on the model. In my (very modest and probably wrong) "model" I assume that gravity doesn't have a specific boson because it is carried by the higgs boson of the standard model.

I think you are referring to the prediction of the string theory, but I completely dismissed the string theory in my post above. My idea is based on the standard model (quantum field theory) which does not have a graviton.

There isn't one but multiple feminisms so your question has no meaning. Are you talking about the feminism that just wants equality and the end of discrimination based on gender. Or are you talking about the feminism that wants an all out war between males and females. Those who use the second category to dismiss the legitimate concerns of the first, are the true evil in my opinion.

Thank you (and sorry for posting in the wrong section). Before I get started I need to specify that my first language is French so please bear with me if my terminology is inaccurate. So as I stated above, my idea came up after thinking about the homogeneity of the Higgs field. I realized the Higgs field appears to behave like a gas that has reached its maximum entropy. Since mass is defined as the interaction between massive particles and the Higgs field, it is reasonable to think massive particles disturb the homogeneity of the Higgs field, and create regions of lower density. If the Higgs field obeys the second law of thermodynamics then it would immediately react by trying to regain its maximum entropy, and much like a gas, it would generate a pressure on massive particles and affect their trajectories. Through the second law of thermodynamics, we could rebuild the mass/geometry mutual influence of the general relativity. Regions of high matter density like planets or stars would have a low Higgs density, and gravity would be nothing more the Higgs field pressure to regain its maximum entropy. If this theory is correct, spacetime would be nothing more than the Higgs field itself and the hypothetical graviton would be nothing more than the Higgs boson. One way to test this theory would be to build a particle accelerator in outer space and see if Higgs bosons are more common in regions of low matter density than they are on Earth. That's it. This theory is very simple as you can see and I would appreciate your feedback. Thank you for reading.

I am a mere student in mathematics and physics and by no mean a specialist, however I am fascinated by the quantum gravity problem, so I've read a lot of documentation about it. I have learned the basic concepts of general relativity and quantum field theory and spent a lot of time trying to understand the intricate relationship between energy, mass, gravity and spacetime. Recently I have come up with a very simple idea that could explain what is the true nature of gravity and spacetime. What led me to this idea is one of the characteristics of the higgs field, its homogeneity. However, being a humble newbie, I realize my idea is almost certainly wrong. On the other hand, quantum gravity theories have been stuck for a while, so maybe all ideas are worth listening ? Please let me know if you want to hear my idea and if you do, I will post it below. Thank you.