Theory that is immune to empirical falsification is dogma. Theory exercises its postulates. Plane geometry has no internal errors but suffered elliptic and hyperbolic geometries, then Thurston. Euclid's Fifth (Parallel) Postulate is weak.

Any spacetime theory must postulate or ignore the Equivalence Principle (EP). String theory does both, which is non-physical. Do all local centers of mass vacuum free fall along identical (parallel) trajectories regardless of chemical composition and mass distribution?

All chemistries obey the EP to 10^(-13) difference/average. Do left and right hands fall identically? The EP (e.g., metric gravitation) demands achiral spacetime. EP-free teleparallel gravitation allows a chiral pseudoscalar background. Left and right hands would fall differently though both would have minimum action trajectories.

What embodies suitable left and right hands? Helv. Chim. Acta 86 905 (2003)
http://www.flack.ch/howard/cristallo/cacs.pdf

How can the largest chiral divergence be calculated? J. Math. Phys. 40(9) 4587 (1999)
http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.html
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzdense.png
CHI=1 is maximum geometric parity (chirality in all directions) divergence
CHI=1-[10^(-15)], 1 cm diameter quartz solid sphere
CHI=1-[10^(-16)], 3 cm diameter quartz solid sphere

Chem. Mater. 15 464 (2003)
Acta Cryst. B60 163­173 (2004)

Do single crystal solid spheres of left- and right-handed quartz fall identically to amorphous fused silica? If the achiral or chiral portion of string theory were excised, the remainder would be more amenable to analysis than debate.

http://focus.aps.org/story/v17/st21
Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 221302 (2006)

"... would disrupt the spacetime symmetries embodied in relativity theory." [consistent with teleparallel theories of gravitation]

Hawking's "backward" is just that, wrong. For the correct see above URL http://www.The-Origin.org where:
First: From a starting point of absolute nothing, HOW and WHY the universe came into existence at a single point -- then exploded outward in the "Big Bang".
Then: Proving the validity of that beginning by Mathematically and Logically Deriving from it the physics of today's universe.

I'm a layman to this subject, but very interested. How does the universe 'select' for certain physical laws and outcomes of interactions? Is the strength of the dominant universe constant throughout or are there portions where alternative laws donimate? Lastly, how can multiple universes 'mix', where potentially conflicting forces are washed out by the dominant universe? How major or minuscule is this mixing?

Isn't this just another way of looking at the universe anthropically?

How did the Universe begin? The answer is in the question itself. Uni-verse. A simple single verse in any approved scientific literature that has unanimous concurrence of all the learned men, women and children of science should be proclaimed as the uni-verse answer to the question How did the Universe begin?

I believe Dr.s Hawking and Hertog are incorrect. Dr. Hawking and Dr. Hertog are discussing a similar path that I have modeled in my book The Universe Particle - A Cosmological Speculation (2006, PublishAmerica). The key point is that there may be an almost infinite number of "universe-particles" in the multiverse, but our universe-particle is unique. Our universe is merely a quantum particle in the "multiverse/bulk/Ultraverse". Dr. Hawking and Dr. Hertog have erroneously incorporated the multiple paths approach "after" the big bang occurred, but the path was already set at the time of the big bang.

"The theory also suggests an answer to the puzzle of why some of the 'constants of nature' seem finely tuned to a value that allows life to evolve. If we start from where we are now, it is obvious that the current Universe must 'select' those histories that lead to these conditions. Otherwise we simply wouldn't be here."

Finely tuned? Do I smell ID sneaking its way into this article?

I contacted Andrei Linde about this work, but his response reached me too late to be included. Linde is one of the best qualified people to comment on this work, so his remarks are well worth seeing. Here they are:

Their paper is interesting, but it is as speculative as everything else in this area, perhaps even more so. They use Hartle-Hawking wave function of the universe which was "derived" (not really...) in 1983 as a wave function for the ground sate of the universe. Then Hawking and his collaborators started using it not to describe the ground state of the universe, but to describe its quantum creation from "nothing". Form my perspective, this interpretation of their function was not justified. Then they found that if they interpret it the way they did, this wave function does not predict inflation.

Few years ago it was realized that if one takes into account singular instantons (which are controversial) and studies the subclass of the instantons where the singularity gives a very large contribution to the Hartle-Hawking wave function, then it might be possible to make the Hartle-Hawking wave function in their (I believe unjustified) interpretation compatible with inflation. This is one of the results reported by Hawking and Hertog.

Unfortunately I am unaware of any clear physical interpretation of such instantons. If one wants to change the Hartle-Hawking wave function, there are much simpler ways to do so in the context of string theory landscape if one considers decay of de Sitter vacuum states into the states with negative vacuum energy, see e.g. the last section of my paper http://arXiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0605266

One way or another, it is good that they are working on this subject, and despite the fact that I do not believe their results I think that it is always helpful to have an alternative point of view. None of us is perfect, but all together we are moving somewhere, hopefully in a right direction.

I am curious to learn what David Allen Ruzicka actually believes when he writes Dr. Hawking and Dr. Hertog have erroneously incorporated the multiple paths approach "after" the big bang occurred, but the path was already set at the time of the big bang.

How can we be certain of the path following the big bang?

If u look at my blog www.googlebay.blogspot.com the heading says I want to buy Google. Do i really know the path to do it?

Great comments. As Niels Bohr once said: 'How wonderful that we have met with a parodox. Now we have some hope of making progress.'

Does this imply or suggest that some future state determines what's happening now?

I do hope this news creates a strong interest in these branches of science in individuals, laypeople and scientists alike, so that they explore the real science and can distinguish it from the pseudoscience which has surfaced via everyone's pet theories (many of which are already shown here in this blog). If it's not in a peer-reviewed journal, it should be taken with a grain of salt. And the pre-print archive is not a peer reviewed journal, so don't get confused by materials you see printed only there. I encourage everyone to go to their local library and enjoy the fascinating peer-reviewed articles and books written by physicists knowledgeable in these subjects so you may truly appreciate how exciting this process of exploration is. Best wishes to the curious!

Does this imply or suggest that some future state determines what's happening now? this is from Robert McFatter.

Let's remember Alvin Toffler and Future Shock.

Toffler explains, "Society needs people who take care of the elderly and who know how to be compassionate and honest. Society needs people who work in hospitals. Society needs all kinds of skill that are not just cognitive; they're emotional, they're affectional. You can't run the society on data and computers alone."

Does this ring a bell?

In one moment, a multi-tude of possibilities exists and billions of choices are made simultaneously which all interact with one another to 'create' the next moment and the evolving series of possibilities / choices. Patterns repeat and coagulate. Those that are stronger / more numerous predominant. Others weaken and fall away. New avenues evolve. We move in and out of balance. There is never "one" thing happening but always many ... what we remember as history or mythology or uncover through archeology, etc. represents only a fragment of what existed. Simultaneous realities converging and emerging ... We look for absolutes, perhaps because in our life we are finite and find security in "knowing".

I mispoke when I said our universe's fate was set at the time of the big bang. What I meant was that all the material was in place after the inflationary epoch. The "universe's" evolution through time is inevitable, but the values are "set" by the end of the inflationary period. Buy my book for a more thorough explanation.

If this article isnt omitting something, there is a very big problem about this theory, and belongs to its logical structure which is "circular": better i see it as a torus re-generating itself from the inner along-the-round line of its section to the outside. Having no end and no beginning is very difficult to see if it's true or not. True or not in Physics can be achieved only if there is an experimental evidence of this theory. Otherwise what we are really able to produce are only dogmas. The theory has otherwise the difficulty to understand and clear which is its base: the hypothesis "Instead, they argue, it began in just about every way imaginable (and maybe some that aren't).", means they have equated the infinite small with the infinite big. Personally i do believe under some circumstances this is possibile, from the point of view of the logic is pretty dangerous to connect these two concepts using some of the quantum physic principles due to the fact that is we are wrong also the conclusion will be wrong. The first question all this arises is if this can be considered as an assiome or not and how to check it.

Then, which is the factor that makes our the actual-and-the-only present Universe? This same question can be discussed too using the same logic of their theory. From this snake-eating-its-own-tail way to think i do believe is almost impossible to say if they are right or not: coz it's lacking the other term of comparison, and us placed in an external system of reference for judge what depends on what.

Continuing, we could even say what has been proposed by them could be considered a tautology way to view the Universe. Also how is it possible to consider the Universe as something that begun in every possibile way (with some even didnt), and be sure that the experimental evidence will univocally determine if our is the main one or just one of the possible contribution to the main one? And which is the life in matter of time of one of these contributing Universe? I think that the top-down theory could give birth to an example of possible univocally determined birth of the Universe considered as "Everything" but which is very difficult to determine now coz at our "present" we have to deal with the quantum infinite complexity of the beginning elevated to the quantum complexity contributions of all the moments till (at least) our moment. Thinking about an experiment, how to handle and lock these contributions and "weight" them considering their interconnections? And what about the consequence of the entanglement in finding this relation between the contributions? I think we could find ourself in the paradox that what we can measure will always give us right coz in the moment we did it we have made it happen. It's like we will always be right in what we think, do, experiment etc. We will loose the term of comparison, the datas wont be able to be checked properly.

Similar theories may be classified as "Why what is, what is."

Think of reality as an unseen, perhaps infinite, "maze," to which every tangible fact represents a solution to that maze.

Both birds and gliders fly because of the "dihedral" which creates "lift".

A brick shaped "wing" cannot "fly." Let alone glide.

So "false" solutions are rejected by universal laws and particular conditions.

The ultimate question remains: why does our universe reject some solutions and allow others?

Why, for example, does our universe take "intention."

Why does matter behave according to certain laws, rather than other ones?

Why is "thought" able to make matter conform to it?

Hence to write letters like this one or set ourselves to investigate the origin of our universe, the nature of consciousness and its connection to and control over certain material processes.

I myself am also a layman with deep interests and self-studies in many disciplines of science- though I have no formal education. Sadly, the scientific community is divided into two feuding factions:those for or against intelligent design. Both groups are unto themselves their own religions and their own worst enemies-albeit greater advances could be made if they approached their research with an open mind. What I find most fascinating is the fact that the data in their studies is in many cases meticuliously manipulated to yield a desire outcome to bolster their beliefs. I endeavor (and struggle) to keep an open mind and let the research or findings speak for itelf: though more often than not one can not assume anything written in an article as a "fact". Interestingly, whenever science makes a discovery or a finding that flies in the face of evolution it is quashed like a bug or the data held to be invalid. I will admit I am jaded toward the notion of creationism- but not as a result of a religious upbringing or "spirtual awakening". The fact of the matter is that I am fascinated with science and have read thousands of technical, and semi-technical research articles both in favor of evolution and against it.
What I have come upon over the years cast serious doubts in mind chiefly against evolution. It was not until the dawn of genetics and the rapid developement
of technology and supercomputers that we now have the means that have opened the door to so many recent findings in many diverse fields.
Specifically, I have a keen interest in the empirical data of the findings for truth is absolute in numbers: for 0 is always and will forever be equal only unto 0.
For example- speaking in terms of the statistical probabilities associated with the chance formation of a "hypothetical" simple cell organism, given all the basic ingredients, the odds have been acknowledged to be worse than 1 in 10 to the 57,800th power: It would take 11 magazine pages of small type just to print this amount of zeros. There is an estimated amount of electrons in the entire universe of 10 to the 80th power. Absolute zero probability is defined mathmatically as odds in excess of 1 in 10 to the 20th power. To quote Sir Fred Hoyle, a well known mathmatician and astronomer, if the whole of the solar system were filled with blind people all shuffling rubic's cubes and they all came to the exact same solution at the exact same time, then this we be approximately the same odds of the formation of only one of over 400 proteins needed for the formation of the hypothetical simple cell genome referenced above. In the real world "simple" bacteria have over 2000 proteins.
Anyway, the reason I mention this is due to the fact that String theory arguably points toward a single and inevitable source from which all originates. Could this be the God they so desperately want to avoid? I find it appalling that people are convicted every day in this country "beyond a reasonable doubt" by DNA evidence that sites statistically probabilities as "empirical proof" to convict them of a crime. In most cases, I have seen the odds sited were less than 1 in 10 to the 9th power: not 1 in 10 to the 57,800th power.
How truly ignorant is this?

I'm not a scientist but the more I self-study the origin of our planet the more I tend to believe in God.
I think that many scientists do the same but are just afraid to admit it.
http://www.exphs.org

Understanding the Universe: Open-mindedness needed to make progress

The solution suggested by Dr. Hawking and Dr. Hertog is refreshing, but in my opinion not the most likely one. However, their paper will probably start the scientific discussion that is needed to come to a better understanding of the Universe. It is important to have such a discussion in the peer-reviewed articles, but also to have a popular debate about it. The scientific majority is conservative and this is exactly what is needed to test new scientific theories/ideas. However, in my opinion, it is also important to keep a certain open-mindedness since most great scientific theories were controversial in a sense and were often first rejected by the scientific majority.

“No doubt there is only one world, the true nature of which we do not even glimpse at present.”-Roger Penrose

Maurits van den Noort

Helen says scientists are afraid to admit they believe in God. I wonder why she drew that conclusion.

I find these comments wonderful, even the purely philosophical ones. Sorry in advance for some potentially discourteous comments. I was hoping for the focus to be on ‘the’ universe, not ‘our’ universe. Why does God or the human conscientiousness have to come into this? These multiverse probabilities work at all scales. Our little corner is one very nice slice of the huge picture, but why not take a step away from our ‘all important little rock’ in space and our beliefs to look at the big picture. Physics endeavors to logically explain the forces that surround us. If you can logically/mathematically prove God had anything to do with anything talked about here, go ahead. Talking about the probability that life would happen on its own is misleading until we know more about cellular development. Until we can cure: cancer, ageing, or even the common cold, don’t talk to me about exactly what the odds are that life would start on a lifeless rock. We just don’t know enough yet to say for sure.

If I was trying to describe evidence that helps explain the geological history of the earth, would you start talking about how God planned it? It dismisses the question. I also believe in keeping an open mind. No one here knows anything for sure. What we’re talking about here are educated guesses based on collected evidence and logical theories.

Science and religion are not the same. Scientific belief comes from many people gathering evidence and others trying to challenge those findings. Religion occurs on a personal level where no one can prove or disprove anything because they’re all feelings. Religion can make you stare in awe of the wonder of creation, but science can help understand it to change it if you want. For me the ultimate goal to understanding the universe isn’t to relate ourselves to the big picture, but relate everything to eachother.

If God is the center of everything, then we’ll understand it all by being really nice.

STEPHEN HAWKING'S LOGIC?

Stephen Hawking:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html :
"Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down light, and make it fall back."

The experiment of Michelson-Morley contradicts the idea that the speed of light varies with position in a gravitational field? Does Stephen Hawking really think so (then his logical capacities are much below average) or is he just dishonest? The latter possibility is more probable - he surely knows what other relativists teach:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field of stars. One can do a simple Huyghens reconstruction of a wave front, taking into account the different speed of advance of the wavefront at different distances from the star (variation of speed of light), to derive the deflection of the light by the star.
Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in:
"On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911.
which predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book "The Principle of Relativity." You will find in section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured."

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
"Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: . . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com