If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.

Previous Contests

**What Is “Fundamental”**

*October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018*

*Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation*

read/discuss

**Wandering Towards a Goal**

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

*December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017*

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.

read/discuss • winners

**Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics**

*Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation*

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

**How Should Humanity Steer the Future?**

*January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014*

*Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

*Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Questioning the Foundations**

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

*May 24 - August 31, 2012*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.

Previous Contests

read/discuss

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

*Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.*

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**David Brown**: *on* 10/22/17 at 13:45pm UTC, wrote I say that my three most important ideas are: (Idea 1) Milgrom is the...

**David Brown**: *on* 10/18/17 at 1:20am UTC, wrote embarrassing typo ... The last sentence should be: If most of the proton...

**David Brown**: *on* 10/17/17 at 19:27pm UTC, wrote According to John P. Lestone, “If black holes (once thought to be point...

**David Brown**: *on* 10/17/17 at 18:43pm UTC, wrote I say that my 3 most important ideas are: (1) Milgrom is the Kepler of...

**David Brown**: *on* 10/9/17 at 9:39am UTC, wrote From Wolfram Alpha: (1 + 1/2.5 + 1/2.5^2 + 1/2.5^3 + 1/2.5^4 )^(1/24) / (1...

**David Brown**: *on* 9/28/17 at 1:02am UTC, wrote Monstrous moonshine, wikipedia My guess is that there might be two...

**David Brown**: *on* 9/17/17 at 20:35pm UTC, wrote “The failures of the standard model of cosmology require a new...

**David Brown**: *on* 9/15/17 at 0:44am UTC, wrote I say that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. Wikiquote for...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**thuy lien**: "The faction in Bannerlord: Battania King: ‘Caladog’ -partially..."
*in* Collapsing Physics: Q&A...

**thuy lien**: "Good article, thanks for sharing. hell let loose metal gear survive far..."
*in* Blurring Causal Lines

**Boyd Bunton**: "Nice share! I am no able ti skip this moment without appreciating you...."
*in* Podcast Up: Interacting...

**Greg Fantle**: "Brush your hair! You look like a homeless person."
*in* The Complexity Conundrum

**kurt stocklmeir**: "shape of time and space around mass vibrates - some times the shape of time..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**Gary Simpson**: "Still waiting for essays to be posted. There are only 5 weeks or so left..."
*in* What Is...

**Boyd Bunton**: "Its absolutely very helpful put up about the subject. All readers can be..."
*in* Podcast Up: Interacting...

**Georgina Woodward**: "John, I reported your post as inappropriate as it is mostly irrelevant to..."
*in* What Is...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**The Complexity Conundrum**

Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

**Quantum Dream Time**

Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

**Our Place in the Multiverse**

Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

**Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena**

A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

**Watching the Observers**

Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

FQXi FORUM

December 15, 2017

CATEGORY:
Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017)
[back]

TOPIC: Milgromian Cosmology, Wolframian Computing, and Primate Consciousness by David Brown [refresh]

TOPIC: Milgromian Cosmology, Wolframian Computing, and Primate Consciousness by David Brown [refresh]

This brief essay raises questions concerning consciousness and its possible relations to the foundations of physics. A few quotations and speculations concerning cosmology, automata, and primate consciousness accompany the questions.

David Brown has an M.A. in mathematics from Princeton University and was for a number of years a computer programmer.

Mr Brown

I greatly appreciate your conclusions concerning primate consc...

Best

John L

report post as inappropriate

I greatly appreciate your conclusions concerning primate consc...

Best

John L

report post as inappropriate

Hello Mr Brown,

It is beautiful general work.I asked if you knew the works of Oparine creating amino acids with a kind of soap mimating the primordial soap billions years ago on earth.I am remembering that he has created arginin with a mix with HCN H2C2 CH4 H20 HN3... more add of E like uv, hv,heat,electricity....That shows us that HCNO is like gravitationally coded and that emergence due to complexification of matter is an evolutive reality.The mass increases even.Consciousness is of course correlated like our brains.The number of interactions and particles imply an emergent consciousness.It is fascinating in fact.Thanks for sharing and congratulations, good luck also for this contest.

Best Regards

report post as inappropriate

It is beautiful general work.I asked if you knew the works of Oparine creating amino acids with a kind of soap mimating the primordial soap billions years ago on earth.I am remembering that he has created arginin with a mix with HCN H2C2 CH4 H20 HN3... more add of E like uv, hv,heat,electricity....That shows us that HCNO is like gravitationally coded and that emergence due to complexification of matter is an evolutive reality.The mass increases even.Consciousness is of course correlated like our brains.The number of interactions and particles imply an emergent consciousness.It is fascinating in fact.Thanks for sharing and congratulations, good luck also for this contest.

Best Regards

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for pointing out Oparin's research — his theory seems to have been on the correct path.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Oparin

https://e

n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron–sulfur_world_hypothesis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Oparin

https://e

n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron–sulfur_world_hypothesis

You are welcome.I liked his works.I rank a little of all.It is in ranking that I found my theory of spherisation.I was facinated by these encodings and increasing mass.We see that in fact the informations, gravitational permit this increasing mass and complexification.Thanks for sharing the iron sulfur hypothesis.ine ase + - .....gravitation electromagnetism.It is a simplistic vue but the universal generality seems working on this road.Even the man and the woman.We encode,we evolve, we sort, superimpose,syunchronise,these informations of evolution.Fascinating is a weak word.

Best Regards

report post as inappropriate

Best Regards

report post as inappropriate

Dear Brown,

Simple natural reality has nothing to do with any abstract complex musings such as the ones you effortlessly indulge in. As I have thoughtfully pointed out in my brilliant essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY, the real Universe consists only of one unified visible infinite surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Reality am not as complicated as theories of reality are. All primates have a complete surface that blends in with the surface that surrounds them.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Simple natural reality has nothing to do with any abstract complex musings such as the ones you effortlessly indulge in. As I have thoughtfully pointed out in my brilliant essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY, the real Universe consists only of one unified visible infinite surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Reality am not as complicated as theories of reality are. All primates have a complete surface that blends in with the surface that surrounds them.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Dear Mr Brown,

The AI seems a specific rational mathematical method.We can with the automata indeed mimâte.The consciousness that said is an other story considering this Arrow of time, entropical.We are a result of encodings due to this evolution of mass.The complexification of matters is a reality and our consciousness is appeared with this increasing mass and correlated brains.We arrive at a point where we must rank so these informations.The computing utilises the binar informations,the universe utilises informations photonic and of gravitation also.These informations are different.If now the quantum computing converges with these quantum informations in utilising the 3D and that these binar informations are extrapolated and synchronized.That becomes intriguing considering the number of interactions of a hard drive mimating the synaps and brains like biology.We arrive at an important deontological question in fact.It is really intriguing considering this gravitation and the main gravitational codes.In logic the singularitiesz,personal considering our soul cannot be touched or approached ,but it is intriguing.The AI is a new era in fact where our consciousness to us the humans must be universal and altruist because these kinds of Tools need a good universal governance and good Securities.Our World W Web is a new tool and this tool changes our social interactions and its is revolutionary.We have created a tool and this tool is going to embark us towards a new era of sharing of informations.The future convergences are fascinating.Best Regards

report post as inappropriate

The AI seems a specific rational mathematical method.We can with the automata indeed mimâte.The consciousness that said is an other story considering this Arrow of time, entropical.We are a result of encodings due to this evolution of mass.The complexification of matters is a reality and our consciousness is appeared with this increasing mass and correlated brains.We arrive at a point where we must rank so these informations.The computing utilises the binar informations,the universe utilises informations photonic and of gravitation also.These informations are different.If now the quantum computing converges with these quantum informations in utilising the 3D and that these binar informations are extrapolated and synchronized.That becomes intriguing considering the number of interactions of a hard drive mimating the synaps and brains like biology.We arrive at an important deontological question in fact.It is really intriguing considering this gravitation and the main gravitational codes.In logic the singularitiesz,personal considering our soul cannot be touched or approached ,but it is intriguing.The AI is a new era in fact where our consciousness to us the humans must be universal and altruist because these kinds of Tools need a good universal governance and good Securities.Our World W Web is a new tool and this tool changes our social interactions and its is revolutionary.We have created a tool and this tool is going to embark us towards a new era of sharing of informations.The future convergences are fascinating.Best Regards

report post as inappropriate

Sorry when I would say deontological I have bad translated I have said like in french,the good word is ethical.Sorry for my English.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

The question at hand: mathematical basis to aims and intention. The author does a good job at putting on the table all the elements that might contribute an answer to the question in one way or another. He does not provide however any particular answer or solution of his own to the problem. An essay generally well written.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Your brilliant essay is actually a future research program and scientific compilation for a physics of consciousness, Mr. Brown. Concerning your questions at the end of the text, I would like to point to the Hebrew sages which imply that the 'ten sayings of creation' (the Memra in Aramaic) were 10 vibrations which comes close to 'cosmic music'. Rashi pointed to the fact that Bereshit starts with a decisive grammatical part missing, i.e. we are not being told of which beginning we learn. Consequently, the physics of the (human-animal) mind is indeed a new frontier of science. Best: stephen i. ternyik

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Hello Mr Ternyik,

Fascinating these cosmic music, they turn so they are these sphères :) could you tell us more please ,I am passionated by this infinite entropy above our physicality.God does not play at dices like said Einstein.What are the ten sayings of creation?

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Fascinating these cosmic music, they turn so they are these sphères :) could you tell us more please ,I am passionated by this infinite entropy above our physicality.God does not play at dices like said Einstein.What are the ten sayings of creation?

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Mr. Dufourny, please look for my responde at your LinkedIn account. Best: S.Ternyik

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

A cornucopia of interesting-ness. I too think Wolfram's cellular automata have interesting things to show and "tell".

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Hi David,

I felt like a boxer’s speed-bag while reading your essay. You raise so many good questions and the quotations were sharp edged. There seemed to be a deeper current in your piece, but it felt as though it was meant for someone other than myself. Would like to have had more of your own thoughts made explicit.

Best, Don

report post as inappropriate

I felt like a boxer’s speed-bag while reading your essay. You raise so many good questions and the quotations were sharp edged. There seemed to be a deeper current in your piece, but it felt as though it was meant for someone other than myself. Would like to have had more of your own thoughts made explicit.

Best, Don

report post as inappropriate

Most of my thoughts are errors or minor extrapolations of other people's thoughts. My guess is that Ray Kurzweil is the world's greatest living genius. (Google "ray kurzweil" for more information.) My guess is that the world's 3 greatest living scientists are James D. Watson, Sydney Brenner, and M. Milgrom. For my thoughts on Milgrom's MOND, google "vixra david brown".

Can anyone think of a physical meaning for the following?

196883^(8 + 1/(4 *5) + 1/(32 * 125) + 1/(256 * 3125)) = 4.165875883 * 10^42 (approximately)?

From my publication "Einstein's Field Equations: 3 Criticisms" (vixra.org): "...

I suggest that there might be 3 possible modifications of Einstein’s field equations. Consider Einstein’s field equations: R(mu,nu) + (-1/2) * g(mu,nu) * R = - κ * T(mu,nu) - Λ * g(mu,nu) — what might be wrong? Consider the possible correction R(mu,nu) + (-1/2 + dark-matter-compensation-constant) * g(mu,nu) * R * (1 - (R(min) / R)^2)^(1/2) = - κ * (T(mu,nu) / equivalence-principle-failure-factor) - Λ * g(mu,nu), where equivalence-principle-failure-factor = (1 - (T(mu,nu)/T(max))^2)^(1/2) — if dark-matter-compensation-constant = 0, R(min) = 0, and T(max) = +∞ then Einstein’s field equations are recovered. …. Our universe was born 13.82 billion years ago. It would have expanded forever in the dark energy and inflationary mode of Newton and Einstein, but for the fact, noticed by Milgrom, that Newton and Einstein were not quite right. Gravitons, unlike photons, gluons, and all other fundamental particles, can sometimes escape from the boundary of the multiverse into the interior of the multiverse. This process of escape, appearing as dark energy, causes a slight excess of gravitational red shift known as dark matter and a slight excess of flattening in spacetime known as Milgromian inflation. Thus our universe expands, collapses in one Planck time interval and is reborn every 81.6 ± 1.7 billion years."

Can anyone think of a physical meaning for the following?

196883^(8 + 1/(4 *5) + 1/(32 * 125) + 1/(256 * 3125)) = 4.165875883 * 10^42 (approximately)?

From my publication "Einstein's Field Equations: 3 Criticisms" (vixra.org): "...

I suggest that there might be 3 possible modifications of Einstein’s field equations. Consider Einstein’s field equations: R(mu,nu) + (-1/2) * g(mu,nu) * R = - κ * T(mu,nu) - Λ * g(mu,nu) — what might be wrong? Consider the possible correction R(mu,nu) + (-1/2 + dark-matter-compensation-constant) * g(mu,nu) * R * (1 - (R(min) / R)^2)^(1/2) = - κ * (T(mu,nu) / equivalence-principle-failure-factor) - Λ * g(mu,nu), where equivalence-principle-failure-factor = (1 - (T(mu,nu)/T(max))^2)^(1/2) — if dark-matter-compensation-constant = 0, R(min) = 0, and T(max) = +∞ then Einstein’s field equations are recovered. …. Our universe was born 13.82 billion years ago. It would have expanded forever in the dark energy and inflationary mode of Newton and Einstein, but for the fact, noticed by Milgrom, that Newton and Einstein were not quite right. Gravitons, unlike photons, gluons, and all other fundamental particles, can sometimes escape from the boundary of the multiverse into the interior of the multiverse. This process of escape, appearing as dark energy, causes a slight excess of gravitational red shift known as dark matter and a slight excess of flattening in spacetime known as Milgromian inflation. Thus our universe expands, collapses in one Planck time interval and is reborn every 81.6 ± 1.7 billion years."

Does deterministic string theory work because the monster group represents bosonic string theory and because the interactions of the monster group with the 6 pariah groups allow the interactions of bosons, leptons, and quarks to be modeled?

Are there 6 basic quarks because there are 6 pariah groups?

Can anyone think of a physical meaning for the following?

196883^(8 + 1/(4 * 5) + 1/(32 * 125) + 1/(256 * 3125)) = 4.165875883 * 10^42 (approximately)

(coulomb's constant) * (electron charge)^2 / ((newton's constant) * (electron mass)^2) =

4.166 * 10^42 (approximately)

196883^8 = 2.25769747 * 10^42 (approximately)

Hypothesis:

196833 is related to a Lie group representation of the monster group. The factor 8 arises because the eight 3-tuples (u,u,u), (u,u,d), (u,d,u), (d,u,u), (d,d,d), (d,d,u), (d,u,d), (u,d,d) represent up quarks and down quarks interacting with bosonic string theory.

Google "monstrous moonshine" for more information.

Are there 6 basic quarks because there are 6 pariah groups?

Can anyone think of a physical meaning for the following?

196883^(8 + 1/(4 * 5) + 1/(32 * 125) + 1/(256 * 3125)) = 4.165875883 * 10^42 (approximately)

(coulomb's constant) * (electron charge)^2 / ((newton's constant) * (electron mass)^2) =

4.166 * 10^42 (approximately)

196883^8 = 2.25769747 * 10^42 (approximately)

Hypothesis:

196833 is related to a Lie group representation of the monster group. The factor 8 arises because the eight 3-tuples (u,u,u), (u,u,d), (u,d,u), (d,u,u), (d,d,d), (d,d,u), (d,u,d), (u,d,d) represent up quarks and down quarks interacting with bosonic string theory.

Google "monstrous moonshine" for more information.

David,

Seems to reveal a script of the inscrutable, the unfathomable, the mysterious: The universe: something from nothing; Life from non-life and mindfulness arising from mindless mathematical laws. Not sure about the relevance of Milgromian Cosmology accounting for no dark matter in your mix. Wolframian computing and universal meaning?

Your essay does make one think though. I have some of the same script.

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

Seems to reveal a script of the inscrutable, the unfathomable, the mysterious: The universe: something from nothing; Life from non-life and mindfulness arising from mindless mathematical laws. Not sure about the relevance of Milgromian Cosmology accounting for no dark matter in your mix. Wolframian computing and universal meaning?

Your essay does make one think though. I have some of the same script.

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

For more information, google "mcgaugh dark matter", "mcgaugh dark matter youtube", "kroupa dark matter", "kroupa dark matter youtube", "wolfram automaton", and "david brown vixra".

David,

Modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND( could offer a viable explanation. Physicists are found of inventing something new rather than modifying the old -- makes one think of obsolescence. My essay does get into a speculation about DM created by the multitudinous forces of normal matter and motion. I'll have to follow the discussion of MOND more.

Check mine out and see what you think.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND( could offer a viable explanation. Physicists are found of inventing something new rather than modifying the old -- makes one think of obsolescence. My essay does get into a speculation about DM created by the multitudinous forces of normal matter and motion. I'll have to follow the discussion of MOND more.

Check mine out and see what you think.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Dear Brown,

You have written a fine essay.

As you mentioned Milgromian Cosmology in the title of your essay (though I did not find any discussion about it), I want to say few words about it before we go further into your essay. This Milgromian cosmology uses different types of formulae just to explain Galaxy rotation curves. These formulae cannot be used anywhere else. The main problem they faced is Dark matter was not detected experimentally.

Just for comparison sake let me tell you about Dynamic Universe Model. This uses its SAME set of singularity free equations at Micro particle level, Solar system level, Milky way level or Universe level… No change. This model predicted that there is no Dark matter and came true after 9 years. This model says no Dark energy, no Blackholes, No Bigbang etc… This model’s prediction of existence of blue shifted Galaxies came true after 10 years through HST. There were many results including VLBI, Pioneer anomaly etc. For your information Bigbang based cosmologies use 40 percent of Galaxies in the Universe. Remaining are neglected.

Your discussions on popular science books is very good. The Wolframian Computing did not become popular somehow. It is probably non availability of higher level popular programs ,

You raised the real good question of experimental Consciousness…

Thank you for the nice essay…

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

You have written a fine essay.

As you mentioned Milgromian Cosmology in the title of your essay (though I did not find any discussion about it), I want to say few words about it before we go further into your essay. This Milgromian cosmology uses different types of formulae just to explain Galaxy rotation curves. These formulae cannot be used anywhere else. The main problem they faced is Dark matter was not detected experimentally.

Just for comparison sake let me tell you about Dynamic Universe Model. This uses its SAME set of singularity free equations at Micro particle level, Solar system level, Milky way level or Universe level… No change. This model predicted that there is no Dark matter and came true after 9 years. This model says no Dark energy, no Blackholes, No Bigbang etc… This model’s prediction of existence of blue shifted Galaxies came true after 10 years through HST. There were many results including VLBI, Pioneer anomaly etc. For your information Bigbang based cosmologies use 40 percent of Galaxies in the Universe. Remaining are neglected.

Your discussions on popular science books is very good. The Wolframian Computing did not become popular somehow. It is probably non availability of higher level popular programs ,

You raised the real good question of experimental Consciousness…

Thank you for the nice essay…

report post as inappropriate

Dear David Brown

I have some observations….

You said in your foundations of Physics section of your essay, “Experimental Physics trumps”

You may probably know…….the MOND or Milgrom Cosmology faces big problem of Dark matter. Dark matter was not found experimentally.

Dynamic Universe Model predicted “No Dark Matter” 10 years back, Now that is came true experimentally

See the papers on…

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/10-feb-20

1-6-all-my-published-papers.html

Best

=snp.gupta

report post as inappropriate

I have some observations….

You said in your foundations of Physics section of your essay, “Experimental Physics trumps”

You may probably know…….the MOND or Milgrom Cosmology faces big problem of Dark matter. Dark matter was not found experimentally.

Dynamic Universe Model predicted “No Dark Matter” 10 years back, Now that is came true experimentally

See the papers on…

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/10-feb-20

1-6-all-my-published-papers.html

Best

=snp.gupta

report post as inappropriate

Dear David Brown,

I want you to ask you to please have a look at my essay, where ……………reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe is described. Dynamic Universe Model is another mathematical model for Universe. Its mathematics show that the movement of masses will be having a purpose or goal, Different Galaxies will be born and die (quench) etc…just have a look at the essay…...

view entire post

I want you to ask you to please have a look at my essay, where ……………reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe is described. Dynamic Universe Model is another mathematical model for Universe. Its mathematics show that the movement of masses will be having a purpose or goal, Different Galaxies will be born and die (quench) etc…just have a look at the essay…...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

I predict that Milgrom will win the Nobel Prize within 5 years.

I say that my 3 most important ideas are:

(1) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology, and MOND will provided the basis for the empirically valid interpretation of string theory.

(2) The Koide formula is essential for understanding the foundations of physics.

(3) Lestone's heuristic string theory is essential for understanding the foundations of physics.

Is gravitational energy conserved in terms of the Newtonian approximation? It might or might not be conserved — physicists should study the empirical evidence.

Crick's "What Mad Pursuit" is the best book that I have ever read. On page 107 of that book, Crick wrote, "What makes people really appreciate the connection between two fields is some new and striking result that obviously connects them in a dramatic way." I believe that the Fernández-Rañada-Milgrom effect is just such a striking result. I believe that Milgrom's MOND will connect astrophysics and string theory in a profound way.

Fernández-Rañada and Tiemblo-Ramos suggested that astronomical time might be different from atomic time. I suggest that astronomical time is definitely different from atomic time. I suggest that dark matter has positive gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy. Am I merely a crackpot? Am I wrong in suggesting that the Gravity Probe B science team misinterpreted their own experiment? Is Milgrom the Kepler of contemporary cosmology?

I say that my 3 most important ideas are:

(1) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology, and MOND will provided the basis for the empirically valid interpretation of string theory.

(2) The Koide formula is essential for understanding the foundations of physics.

(3) Lestone's heuristic string theory is essential for understanding the foundations of physics.

Is gravitational energy conserved in terms of the Newtonian approximation? It might or might not be conserved — physicists should study the empirical evidence.

Crick's "What Mad Pursuit" is the best book that I have ever read. On page 107 of that book, Crick wrote, "What makes people really appreciate the connection between two fields is some new and striking result that obviously connects them in a dramatic way." I believe that the Fernández-Rañada-Milgrom effect is just such a striking result. I believe that Milgrom's MOND will connect astrophysics and string theory in a profound way.

Fernández-Rañada and Tiemblo-Ramos suggested that astronomical time might be different from atomic time. I suggest that astronomical time is definitely different from atomic time. I suggest that dark matter has positive gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy. Am I merely a crackpot? Am I wrong in suggesting that the Gravity Probe B science team misinterpreted their own experiment? Is Milgrom the Kepler of contemporary cosmology?

There is a typo in the previous position — "MOND will provided" should be "MOND will provide".

If MOND, were empirically invalid then there is no way whatsoever that Milgrom could have convinced McGaugh and Kroupa.

http://astroweb.case.edu/ssm/mond/burn1.html "Why Consider MOND?" by S. McGaugh

https://astro.uni-bonn.de/~pavel/kroupa_cosmology.htm

l "Pavel Kroupa: Dark Matter, Cosmology and Progress"

If MOND, were empirically invalid then there is no way whatsoever that Milgrom could have convinced McGaugh and Kroupa.

http://astroweb.case.edu/ssm/mond/burn1.html "Why Consider MOND?" by S. McGaugh

https://astro.uni-bonn.de/~pavel/kroupa_cosmology.htm

l "Pavel Kroupa: Dark Matter, Cosmology and Progress"

One possibility that might prove that I am a crackpot is the existence of MOND-chameleon particles — these hypothetical particles would have variable effective mass depending upon the nearby gravitational acceleration. Another fatal blow could be the success of a Bekenstein-type theory that could explain MOND but still maintain conservation of gravitational energy in terms of the Newtonian approximation.

I believe that contemporary physicists suffer from the belief that gravitational energy is conserved in terms of the Newtonian approximation. It might or might not be conserved — the empirical evidence determines scientific truth.

Crick's "What Mad Pursuit" is the best book that I have ever read. On page 107 of that book, Crick wrote, "What makes people really appreciate the connection between two fields is some new and striking result that obviously connects them in a dramatic way." I believe that the Fernández-Rañada-Milgrom effect is just such a striking result. I believe that Milgrom's MOND will connect astrophysics and string theory in a profound way.

Fernández-Rañada and Tiemblo-Ramos suggested that astronomical time might be different from atomic time. I suggest that astronomical time is definitely different from atomic time and that dark matter has positive gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy. Am I merely a crackpot? Am I wrong in suggesting that the Gravity Probe B science team misinterpreted their own experiment? Is Milgrom the Kepler of contemporary cosmology?

I conjecture that string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis implies supersymmetry and no MOND, while string theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies MOND and no supersymmetry.

I believe that contemporary physicists suffer from the belief that gravitational energy is conserved in terms of the Newtonian approximation. It might or might not be conserved — the empirical evidence determines scientific truth.

Crick's "What Mad Pursuit" is the best book that I have ever read. On page 107 of that book, Crick wrote, "What makes people really appreciate the connection between two fields is some new and striking result that obviously connects them in a dramatic way." I believe that the Fernández-Rañada-Milgrom effect is just such a striking result. I believe that Milgrom's MOND will connect astrophysics and string theory in a profound way.

Fernández-Rañada and Tiemblo-Ramos suggested that astronomical time might be different from atomic time. I suggest that astronomical time is definitely different from atomic time and that dark matter has positive gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy. Am I merely a crackpot? Am I wrong in suggesting that the Gravity Probe B science team misinterpreted their own experiment? Is Milgrom the Kepler of contemporary cosmology?

I conjecture that string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis implies supersymmetry and no MOND, while string theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies MOND and no supersymmetry.

Sorry about repetition in preceding post.

If dark energy obeys the equivalence principle, then does dark energy have negative inertial mass-energy?

Consider the following 2 conjectures:

(1) Dark energy has negative gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy.

(2) Dark matter has positive gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy.

Can physicists site empirical evidence that disconfirms the preceding 2 conjectures?

Consider 4 more conjectures (A), (B), (C), and (D):

(A) The equivalence principle fails at the Planck scale if and only if leptons and quarks have structure at the Planck scale.

(B) String theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies that the equivalence principle fails at the Planck scale.

(C) If the universe expands forever, then string theory with the finite nature hypothesis is false, and, consequently, 't Hooft's deterministic string theory is likely to be false.

(D) If the universe does not expand forever, then a scaling factor involving R should be incorporated into Einstein's field equations.

Should physicists think carefully about the preceding 6 conjectures?

If dark energy obeys the equivalence principle, then does dark energy have negative inertial mass-energy?

Consider the following 2 conjectures:

(1) Dark energy has negative gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy.

(2) Dark matter has positive gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy.

Can physicists site empirical evidence that disconfirms the preceding 2 conjectures?

Consider 4 more conjectures (A), (B), (C), and (D):

(A) The equivalence principle fails at the Planck scale if and only if leptons and quarks have structure at the Planck scale.

(B) String theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies that the equivalence principle fails at the Planck scale.

(C) If the universe expands forever, then string theory with the finite nature hypothesis is false, and, consequently, 't Hooft's deterministic string theory is likely to be false.

(D) If the universe does not expand forever, then a scaling factor involving R should be incorporated into Einstein's field equations.

Should physicists think carefully about the preceding 6 conjectures?

Why might the Koide formula be essential for understanding the foundations of physics?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koide_formula

According to the conventional wisdom, dark matter certainly has positive gravitational mass-energy and positive inertial mass-energy and obeys the equivalence principle — presumably because Einstein's field equations are true. However, note that I have suggested 3 corrections to Einstein's field equations: one for MOND, one for the Koide formula, and one for Lestone's heuristic string theory. Consider this idea: mass-energy can be converted into space-time. Write square-root(mass) = Koide-constant * area. What might this mean? Mass-energy of big bang = (Koide-Constant)^2 * (volume of spacetime at time of maximum expansion of the universe) * (81.6 ± 1.7 billion years) *c, where c is the speed of light in vacuo. Can astrophysicists explain the space roar? Does the space roar suggest the validity of the Koide formula (as NOT merely a coincidence)?

Does Milgrom's MOND suggest a modification to Einstein's field equations?

My idea is that dark matter has positive gravitational energy and zero inertial mass energy — this means replace the -1/2 in the standard form of Einstein's field equations by -1/2 + dark-matter-compensation-constant.

How many astrophysicists have looked at the following?

http://vixra.org/abs/1410.0186 "Where Are the Dark Matter Particles?"

Is Milgrom the Kepler of contemporary cosmology?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koide_formula

According to the conventional wisdom, dark matter certainly has positive gravitational mass-energy and positive inertial mass-energy and obeys the equivalence principle — presumably because Einstein's field equations are true. However, note that I have suggested 3 corrections to Einstein's field equations: one for MOND, one for the Koide formula, and one for Lestone's heuristic string theory. Consider this idea: mass-energy can be converted into space-time. Write square-root(mass) = Koide-constant * area. What might this mean? Mass-energy of big bang = (Koide-Constant)^2 * (volume of spacetime at time of maximum expansion of the universe) * (81.6 ± 1.7 billion years) *c, where c is the speed of light in vacuo. Can astrophysicists explain the space roar? Does the space roar suggest the validity of the Koide formula (as NOT merely a coincidence)?

Does Milgrom's MOND suggest a modification to Einstein's field equations?

My idea is that dark matter has positive gravitational energy and zero inertial mass energy — this means replace the -1/2 in the standard form of Einstein's field equations by -1/2 + dark-matter-compensation-constant.

How many astrophysicists have looked at the following?

http://vixra.org/abs/1410.0186 "Where Are the Dark Matter Particles?"

Is Milgrom the Kepler of contemporary cosmology?

David

Great essay. Certainly one of the best here. Well set out, written and argued, though it helps that I agree most of your arguments and (though more limited!) conclusions. A few specifics.

1. I like & agree your 4 trumps, (though I suspect we'll find one Trump may be enough!)

2. Thanks for the Crick quote. I'll get the book. I certainly agree in my own essay;*All approaches at a higher level are suspect until confirmed at the molecular level* indeed I suggest the next step or even two below molecular level.

3. I also than answer YES, that;*consciousness reduces to molecular psychology reduces to molecular biology reduces to chemistry reduces to physics* if not quite to present doctrines of physics!

I'm not a mathematician, so it's a pleasant surprise to find so much agreement. However from the observational cosmology view I seem to have identified apparently slightly more logically complete options than I understand (maybe only a little) Milgromian cosmology gives. Consistent derivations of dark matter, energy, gravity and cosmic redshift (**without** needing accelerating expansion) emerge (I've published papers if you're interested).

I'd like to go into that further but best stick to the essays for now. I'd love a mathematicians view or even promise of input into my own logic.

Best of luck in the contest.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Great essay. Certainly one of the best here. Well set out, written and argued, though it helps that I agree most of your arguments and (though more limited!) conclusions. A few specifics.

1. I like & agree your 4 trumps, (though I suspect we'll find one Trump may be enough!)

2. Thanks for the Crick quote. I'll get the book. I certainly agree in my own essay;

3. I also than answer YES, that;

I'm not a mathematician, so it's a pleasant surprise to find so much agreement. However from the observational cosmology view I seem to have identified apparently slightly more logically complete options than I understand (maybe only a little) Milgromian cosmology gives. Consistent derivations of dark matter, energy, gravity and cosmic redshift (

I'd like to go into that further but best stick to the essays for now. I'd love a mathematicians view or even promise of input into my own logic.

Best of luck in the contest.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson: Your essay's abstract begins with "Artificial intelligence can already learn..." and ends with "No conclusion is possible as to whether or not a cosmic architect created our own or any universe." I doubt the existence of miracles, immortal souls, and/or supernatural entities — but do we really have convincing evidence that miracles do not occur in the Andromeda Galaxy? Can we really be sure that human consciousness is not merely a simulation in a higher being's computer game? As to AI learning, where might it end?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

F

rom the following list of physicists, I would vote for Steven Weinberg as the best role model for aspiring theoretical physicists.

http://www.science20.com/hammock_physicist/who_to

days_einstein_exercise_ranking_scientists-75928

— D. Brown

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

F

rom the following list of physicists, I would vote for Steven Weinberg as the best role model for aspiring theoretical physicists.

http://www.science20.com/hammock_physicist/who_to

days_einstein_exercise_ranking_scientists-75928

— D. Brown

David,

I agree we have inadequate evidence for most assumptions we DO make let alone for any others.

I tend to agree with Gates, Hawking (for a change) and Musk that AI is increasingly dangerous to mankind, probably lethal. That's one reason we need to self-evolve our OWN intelligence somewhat. Look how few have even comprehended the classical derivation of QM in my essay and video! (did you?) It doesn't bode well for us.

Nonetheless I feel your score is way too low and I'm applying mine now to correct it somewhat.

Best of luck

Peter

report post as inappropriate

I agree we have inadequate evidence for most assumptions we DO make let alone for any others.

I tend to agree with Gates, Hawking (for a change) and Musk that AI is increasingly dangerous to mankind, probably lethal. That's one reason we need to self-evolve our OWN intelligence somewhat. Look how few have even comprehended the classical derivation of QM in my essay and video! (did you?) It doesn't bode well for us.

Nonetheless I feel your score is way too low and I'm applying mine now to correct it somewhat.

Best of luck

Peter

report post as inappropriate

I want to elaborate on some of my conjectures. Consider 7 conjectures:

(1) Time exists because 2^46 divides the order of the monster group, i.e., time exists because of the symmetries associated with the embedding of the Sylow 2-subgroup of the monster group.

(2) Space exists because 3^20 divides he order of the monster group, i.e., space exists because of the symmetries associated with the embedding of the Sylow 3-subgroup of the monster group.

(3) There are 3 generations of fermions because 13^3 divides the order of the monster group.

(4) Time and antimatter-time exist because 11^2 divides the order of the monster group, thus allowing Witten's 11-dimenstional model to govern the interactions of bosons, leptons, and quarks; these interactions can be mathematically described by the interactions of the monster group and the 6 pariah groups.

(5) There are 6 basic quarks because there are 6 pariah groups.

(6) If G is a finite group, then define Lie-group(G) to be the Lie group associated with the minimal Lie group representation of G. There exists a system of information transfer associated with Lie-group(monster group), and Lie-group(5-Sylow subgroup of the monster group) and the Lie-group (...) associated with the 6 pariah groups and their associated 5-Sylow subgroups.

(7) The reason that 7^6 divides the order of the monster group is that each of the 6 basic quarks has a 3-dimensional linear momentum, a 3-dimensional angular momentum, and quantum spin.

Is Milgrom the Kepler of contemporary cosmology? Google "witten milgrom" and "kroupa milgrom" for more information.

(1) Time exists because 2^46 divides the order of the monster group, i.e., time exists because of the symmetries associated with the embedding of the Sylow 2-subgroup of the monster group.

(2) Space exists because 3^20 divides he order of the monster group, i.e., space exists because of the symmetries associated with the embedding of the Sylow 3-subgroup of the monster group.

(3) There are 3 generations of fermions because 13^3 divides the order of the monster group.

(4) Time and antimatter-time exist because 11^2 divides the order of the monster group, thus allowing Witten's 11-dimenstional model to govern the interactions of bosons, leptons, and quarks; these interactions can be mathematically described by the interactions of the monster group and the 6 pariah groups.

(5) There are 6 basic quarks because there are 6 pariah groups.

(6) If G is a finite group, then define Lie-group(G) to be the Lie group associated with the minimal Lie group representation of G. There exists a system of information transfer associated with Lie-group(monster group), and Lie-group(5-Sylow subgroup of the monster group) and the Lie-group (...) associated with the 6 pariah groups and their associated 5-Sylow subgroups.

(7) The reason that 7^6 divides the order of the monster group is that each of the 6 basic quarks has a 3-dimensional linear momentum, a 3-dimensional angular momentum, and quantum spin.

Is Milgrom the Kepler of contemporary cosmology? Google "witten milgrom" and "kroupa milgrom" for more information.

Hello,

It is relevant considering the ranking of groups.Have you already thought about the padics numbers and the groups and the morphisms.I beleive that an extension of quaternions could be relevant inj superimposing the vectors, scalrs in converging with the spherical volumes.If the quantum BHs and BHs are correlated with this matter not baryonic implying gravitation with the cold so we have a road to better understand the scales and correlated laws.The works of Clifford or Hopf also could help.I beleive strongly that the spherical volumes are essential.The points are well but we can imrpove the détails with the 3 motions of these spherical volumes.The sortings and synchros appear when we consider also the senses of rotations and angles.The good reccurent method can be found.The aim being to understand better this infinite gravitational potential energy and this kinetic énergies distributed if In can say in a simplistic point of vue.I beleive that the groups can be found,me I am a nursery manI have not the skillings for simulations,but if somebody can try several methods by simulations, it could be very relevant.They turn so they are after all these sphères.Regards

report post as inappropriate

It is relevant considering the ranking of groups.Have you already thought about the padics numbers and the groups and the morphisms.I beleive that an extension of quaternions could be relevant inj superimposing the vectors, scalrs in converging with the spherical volumes.If the quantum BHs and BHs are correlated with this matter not baryonic implying gravitation with the cold so we have a road to better understand the scales and correlated laws.The works of Clifford or Hopf also could help.I beleive strongly that the spherical volumes are essential.The points are well but we can imrpove the détails with the 3 motions of these spherical volumes.The sortings and synchros appear when we consider also the senses of rotations and angles.The good reccurent method can be found.The aim being to understand better this infinite gravitational potential energy and this kinetic énergies distributed if In can say in a simplistic point of vue.I beleive that the groups can be found,me I am a nursery manI have not the skillings for simulations,but if somebody can try several methods by simulations, it could be very relevant.They turn so they are after all these sphères.Regards

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny: "... an extension of quaternions could be relevant ..." It seems plausible that both quaternions and octonions could be relevant — if there are 6 basic quarks because there are 6 pariah groups ... (not yet well-formulated).

https://books.google.com/books?id=irt7nOFaR

3sC "Quaternionic Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Fields" by Stephen L. Adler, 1995

Sepunaru, Daniel. "On Hypercomplex Extensions of Quantum Theory." arXiv preprint arXiv:1501.05853 (2015).

In my previous post there is the typo "... 3^20 divides he order ..."

https://books.google.com/books?id=irt7nOFaR

3sC "Quaternionic Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Fields" by Stephen L. Adler, 1995

Sepunaru, Daniel. "On Hypercomplex Extensions of Quantum Theory." arXiv preprint arXiv:1501.05853 (2015).

In my previous post there is the typo "... 3^20 divides he order ..."

Thanks for sharing.It is relevant all this for the fractalisation of our scales.

All the best.

report post as inappropriate

All the best.

report post as inappropriate

I would like to try to explain some of the backstory of my essay. In Tahiti, Paul Gauguin painted his famous masterpiece (oil on canvas) now known as "D'où Venons Nous/Que Sommes Nous/Où Allons Nous" (Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going?). Gauguin's 3 questions are indeed important. There might be a kind of fatal paradox in science — to fully answer many scientific questions, superhuman intelligence might be required. Thus, the ongoing progress of science and technology might entail the downfall of the human species — what Ray Kurzweil, a supreme optimist, calls the "Singularity". Is Darwinian evolution brutal, extravagant, wasteful, relentless, and inevitable? Will superhuman beings treat human beings with benevolence and solicitude? What is the fundamental Darwinian trend of consciousness? What is consciousness? Specifically, what might be a mathematical model or computer simulation of visual consciousness in primates? Would a full answer to the preceding question require superhuman intelligence?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXGZ3euhq4g History of Neuroscience: Francis Crick, YouTube, 2012

Is the science of human consciousness necessary for understanding who we are? Where are we going? Where is our universe going? Where did the big bang come from? My guess is that the empirically valid answers to the 2 preceding questions require 3 distinct modifications to Einstein's field equations. (Google "einstein's field equations 3 criticisms" for more information on my guesses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXGZ3euhq4g History of Neuroscience: Francis Crick, YouTube, 2012

Is the science of human consciousness necessary for understanding who we are? Where are we going? Where is our universe going? Where did the big bang come from? My guess is that the empirically valid answers to the 2 preceding questions require 3 distinct modifications to Einstein's field equations. (Google "einstein's field equations 3 criticisms" for more information on my guesses.

"The development of science, from ancient times to the present, has been a series of nearly unbroken steps where one concept after another has moved out of the shadows of doubt and uncertainty and into the light of accepted scientific fact. The atomic hypothesis, whether matter is made up of atoms, is only one of many atomic hypotheses. So far every such question, discrete versus continuous, about...

view entire post

view entire post

Do the predictive successes of Milgrom’s MOdified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) constitute physical evidence that a multiverse exists?

In the standard form of Einstein's field equations, replace the -1/2 by

-1/2 + dark-matter-compensation-constant.

Replace F = G * m1 * m2 / r^2 by F = ((1 – 2 * D-M-C-C)^–1) * G * m1 * m2 / r^2 , where

D-M-C-C = dark-matter-compensation-constant = sqrt((60±10)/4) * 10^–5 (approximately). Let m1 be the mass of a galaxy and let m2 represent the mass of a star in the galaxy.

F = ((1 – 2 * D-M-C-C)^–1) * G * m1 * m2 / r^2 =

m2 * (gravitational-acceleration-of-m2-with-respect-to-m1).

F = G * m1 * m2 / r^2 =

m2 * ( (gravitational-acceleration-of-m2-with-respect-to-m1) * (1 – 2 * D-M-C-C) ). If we break up the zones of gravitational-acceleration into sub-zones of approximately constant gravitational-acceleration then we approximately recover the MONDian law of acceleration.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/42133

8/meta McGaugh, Stacy S. "The mass discrepancy-acceleration relation: disk mass and the dark matter distribution." The Astrophysical Journal 609, no. 2 (2004): 652.

In the standard form of Einstein's field equations, replace the -1/2 by

-1/2 + dark-matter-compensation-constant.

Replace F = G * m1 * m2 / r^2 by F = ((1 – 2 * D-M-C-C)^–1) * G * m1 * m2 / r^2 , where

D-M-C-C = dark-matter-compensation-constant = sqrt((60±10)/4) * 10^–5 (approximately). Let m1 be the mass of a galaxy and let m2 represent the mass of a star in the galaxy.

F = ((1 – 2 * D-M-C-C)^–1) * G * m1 * m2 / r^2 =

m2 * (gravitational-acceleration-of-m2-with-respect-to-m1).

F = G * m1 * m2 / r^2 =

m2 * ( (gravitational-acceleration-of-m2-with-respect-to-m1) * (1 – 2 * D-M-C-C) ). If we break up the zones of gravitational-acceleration into sub-zones of approximately constant gravitational-acceleration then we approximately recover the MONDian law of acceleration.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/42133

8/meta McGaugh, Stacy S. "The mass discrepancy-acceleration relation: disk mass and the dark matter distribution." The Astrophysical Journal 609, no. 2 (2004): 652.

Is Lestone’s theory of virtual cross sections essential for the development of Milgromian cosmology?

John P. Lestone of Los Alamos National Laboratory wrote,

“Introduction to my idea

Before Hawking’s work (and others) black-holes were believed to be point objects with only mass, spin, and charge. This is why Einstein (1930s) and others have previously considered the...

view entire post

John P. Lestone of Los Alamos National Laboratory wrote,

“Introduction to my idea

Before Hawking’s work (and others) black-holes were believed to be point objects with only mass, spin, and charge. This is why Einstein (1930s) and others have previously considered the...

view entire post

I conjecture that paradigm-breaking photons caused by inverse Compton scattering from relativist jets explain the GZK paradox.

http://en/wikipedia.org/wiki/Greisen–Zatsepin–Ku

zmin_limit

Consider Einstein’s field equations: R(mu,nu) + (-1/2) * g(mu,nu) * R = - κ * T(mu,nu) - Λ * g(mu,nu) — what might be wrong? Consider the possible correction R(mu,nu) + (-1/2) *...

view entire post

http://en/wikipedia.org/wiki/Greisen–Zatsepin–Ku

zmin_limit

Consider Einstein’s field equations: R(mu,nu) + (-1/2) * g(mu,nu) * R = - κ * T(mu,nu) - Λ * g(mu,nu) — what might be wrong? Consider the possible correction R(mu,nu) + (-1/2) *...

view entire post

In my essay for this fqxi contest, I noticed an error in my quotation from Charles Jennings in "Nature Neuroscience" (2000)

" ... it is impressive that so much agreement has been reached on how Where to proceed ..."

" ... it is impressive that so much agreement has been reached on how Where to proceed ..."

Replace the error by "... it is impressive that so much agreement has been reached on how to proceed ..."

Also, I have mentioned in comments in this comments section several mathematical structures, i.e., monster group, pariah groups, Leech lattice, and Clebsch diagonal cubic surface, in connection with my speculations on Milgromian cosmology.

If my speculations on Milgromian cosmology are not examples of self-delusion, then my guess is that the hypergeometric series highlighted by Hosono in equation (1.1) of the following publication

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0404043v4.pdf “Central charges, symplectic forms, and hypergeometric series in local mirror symmetric” by Shinobu Hosono, 2005

might also play an essential role in Milgromian cosmology and the foundations of physics.

Also, I have mentioned in comments in this comments section several mathematical structures, i.e., monster group, pariah groups, Leech lattice, and Clebsch diagonal cubic surface, in connection with my speculations on Milgromian cosmology.

If my speculations on Milgromian cosmology are not examples of self-delusion, then my guess is that the hypergeometric series highlighted by Hosono in equation (1.1) of the following publication

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0404043v4.pdf “Central charges, symplectic forms, and hypergeometric series in local mirror symmetric” by Shinobu Hosono, 2005

might also play an essential role in Milgromian cosmology and the foundations of physics.

I have conjectured the Milgrom Denial Hypothesis: The main problem with string theory is that string theorists fail to realize that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. I have 2 main guesses: (1) String theory with the infinite nature hypothesis implies supersymmetry and no MOND. (2) String theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies MOND and no supersymmetry. Can string theory...

view entire post

view entire post

Criticisms from some physicists suggest that they misunderstand my analysis of the Koide formula. For me, the point is NOT that the Koide formula predicts some particular range of values for lepton masses — the WHOLE POINT is that square-root(mass) has some kind of profound meaning in terms of physics. Conventional wisdom says that there exists a Planck time and a Planck length. Does there exist...

view entire post

view entire post

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9129 "Can the Laws of Physics be Unified?"

https://www.quora.com/What-was-Lubos-Motls-greatest

-contribution-to-physics

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-h

ope-of-reformulating-String-Theory-without-supersymmetry

http

s://www.quora.com/Does-string-theory-require-supersymmetry-W

hy

It seems to me that I have...

view entire post

https://www.quora.com/What-was-Lubos-Motls-greatest

-contribution-to-physics

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-h

ope-of-reformulating-String-Theory-without-supersymmetry

http

s://www.quora.com/Does-string-theory-require-supersymmetry-W

hy

It seems to me that I have...

view entire post

Is Bell’s theorem true? Joseph Polchinski wrote, “The second superstring revolution began in 1995. Over a period four years, we discovered dualities of quantum field theories, dualities of string theories, duality between quantum field theories and string theories (that is, AdS/CFT), D-branes, Matrix theory, and quantitative understanding of black hole...

view entire post

view entire post

Google "kroupa dark matter" for problems that Kroupa and other astrophysics have identified concerning theories of dark matter particles that obey Newtonian-Einsteinan dynamics. It seems to me that there might be MOND-chameleon particles that have variable effective mass depending upon the nearby gravitational acceleration. I have conjectured the Milgrom Denial Hypothesis: The main problem with string theory is that string theorists fail to realize that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. Is the Milgrom Denial Hypothesis wrong? Can string theory predict both supersymmetry and MOND-chameleon particles? Suppose that there are two Higgs fields: one Higgs field for ordinary matter and another Higgs field (the MOND-chameleon-Higgs field) for the superpartners of the ordinary particles. Does M-theory rule out a MOND-chameleon-Higgs field? The MOND-chameleon-Higgs field might have some bizarre, unknown correlation with Einstein's curvature scalar R allowing some superpartners to act as MOND-chameleon particles.

Is it possible that Milgrom’s acceleration law is wrong? No, because Milgrom, McGaugh, Kroupa, and Pawlowski have elaborated too much empirical evidence in its favor. There are only 2 possibilities: (1) Newtonian-Einsteinian gravitational theory is 100% correct but appears to be significantly wrong for some unknown reason. (2) Newtonian-Einsteinian gravitational really is slightly wrong. How...

view entire post

view entire post

Hi David,

You do go on and on....Not that this is not an interesting shotgun approach to what is the most interesting stuff. And I like it a lot. Thus my boosting your score. Please allow me to add a pellet to your shotgun blast.

I have a theory that is related to MOND and comes to the conclusion that Newtonian gravity and a modified idea of what constitutes a graviton can explain curved space-time and dark energy-dark matter (and not directly contradict GR). Yah, Yah, me and every crackpot on the planet. But, do check out my website, and the paper "A Quantum Mechanical View of the Precession of Mercury’s Orbit".

e-mail me at don.limuti@gmail.com and I'll forward a copy.

Thanks,

Don Limuti

report post as inappropriate

You do go on and on....Not that this is not an interesting shotgun approach to what is the most interesting stuff. And I like it a lot. Thus my boosting your score. Please allow me to add a pellet to your shotgun blast.

I have a theory that is related to MOND and comes to the conclusion that Newtonian gravity and a modified idea of what constitutes a graviton can explain curved space-time and dark energy-dark matter (and not directly contradict GR). Yah, Yah, me and every crackpot on the planet. But, do check out my website, and the paper "A Quantum Mechanical View of the Precession of Mercury’s Orbit".

e-mail me at don.limuti@gmail.com and I'll forward a copy.

Thanks,

Don Limuti

report post as inappropriate

Consider 2 ideas: (1) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. (2) Any empirically valid explanation of dark matter should derive MOND.

Pavel Kroupa - The vast polar structures around the Milky Way and Andromeda, YouTube, 2013

Consider 5 conjectures: (1) Time exists because 2^46 divides the order of the monster group. (2) Space exists because 3^20 divides the order of the monster group. (3) Witten's 11-dimensional model is essential for understanding the physical reason that 11^2 divides the order of the monster group. (4) There are 6 basic quarks because there are 6 pariah groups. (5) If the Gravity Probe science team is correct about the malfunction of their 4 ultra-precise gyroscopes then David Brown is a crackpot.

Should string theorists consider the following possibility? String theory might consist of 2 different forms of strings: ordinary strings and MOND-chameleon strings. The MOND-chameleon strings might be involved in maintaining the structure of the string landscape and might have superpositions among alternate universes.

Pavel Kroupa - The vast polar structures around the Milky Way and Andromeda, YouTube, 2013

Consider 5 conjectures: (1) Time exists because 2^46 divides the order of the monster group. (2) Space exists because 3^20 divides the order of the monster group. (3) Witten's 11-dimensional model is essential for understanding the physical reason that 11^2 divides the order of the monster group. (4) There are 6 basic quarks because there are 6 pariah groups. (5) If the Gravity Probe science team is correct about the malfunction of their 4 ultra-precise gyroscopes then David Brown is a crackpot.

Should string theorists consider the following possibility? String theory might consist of 2 different forms of strings: ordinary strings and MOND-chameleon strings. The MOND-chameleon strings might be involved in maintaining the structure of the string landscape and might have superpositions among alternate universes.

Hi David,

I enjoyed your essay. I appreciate that you seem to have a great reverence for questions, as opposed to just answers:)

If you're interested in Fredkin and Wolfram's work, please check out my essay, but more importantly,**please check out my film "Digital Physics", which is available on iTunes, Amazon Prime, and Vimeo.** I'm trying to get the film seen by a wider audience than just friends and family, so any support you can offer is very appreciated:) Thanks!

Jon

report post as inappropriate

I enjoyed your essay. I appreciate that you seem to have a great reverence for questions, as opposed to just answers:)

If you're interested in Fredkin and Wolfram's work, please check out my essay, but more importantly,

Jon

report post as inappropriate

My guess is that Fredkin is correct in conjecturing that nature contains neither complete infinities nor potential infinities. My guess is that Wolfram's book "A New Kind of Science" is one of the greatest books ever written — however, it might not be. My guess is that nature is finite and digital if and only if string theory with the finite nature hypothesis can prove itself superior to string...

view entire post

view entire post

Dear David Brown!

I appreciate your essay. You spent a lot of effort to write it. If you believed in the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes, then your essay would be even better. There is not movable a geometric space, and is movable physical space. These are different concepts.

I invite you to familiarize yourself with New Cartesian Physic

I wish to see your criticism on the New Cartesian Physic, the founder of which I call myself.

The concept of moving space-matter helped me: The uncertainty principle Heisenberg to make the principle of definiteness of points of space-matter; Open the law of the constancy of the flow of forces through a closed surface is the sphere of space-matter; Open the law of universal attraction of Lorentz; Give the formula for the pressure of the Universe; To give a definition of gravitational mass as the flow vector of the centrifugal acceleration across the surface of the corpuscles, etc.

New Cartesian Physic has great potential in understanding the world. To show this potential in essay I risked give «The way of The materialist explanation of the paranormal and the supernatural” - Is the name of my essay.

Visit my essay and you will find something in it about New Cartesian Physic. Note my statement that our brain creates an image of the outside world no inside, and in external space.

Do not let New Cartesian Physic get away into obscurity! I am waiting your post.

Sincerely,

Dizhechko Boris

report post as inappropriate

I appreciate your essay. You spent a lot of effort to write it. If you believed in the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes, then your essay would be even better. There is not movable a geometric space, and is movable physical space. These are different concepts.

I invite you to familiarize yourself with New Cartesian Physic

I wish to see your criticism on the New Cartesian Physic, the founder of which I call myself.

The concept of moving space-matter helped me: The uncertainty principle Heisenberg to make the principle of definiteness of points of space-matter; Open the law of the constancy of the flow of forces through a closed surface is the sphere of space-matter; Open the law of universal attraction of Lorentz; Give the formula for the pressure of the Universe; To give a definition of gravitational mass as the flow vector of the centrifugal acceleration across the surface of the corpuscles, etc.

New Cartesian Physic has great potential in understanding the world. To show this potential in essay I risked give «The way of The materialist explanation of the paranormal and the supernatural” - Is the name of my essay.

Visit my essay and you will find something in it about New Cartesian Physic. Note my statement that our brain creates an image of the outside world no inside, and in external space.

Do not let New Cartesian Physic get away into obscurity! I am waiting your post.

Sincerely,

Dizhechko Boris

report post as inappropriate

Я уверен в одном. Милгром - Кеплер современной космологии.

Модифицированная ньютоновская динамика, ru.wikipedia.org

Модифицированная ньютоновская динамика, ru.wikipedia.org

What does dark energy imply for the foundations of physics? I want to make a few more points concerning string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis versus string theory with the finite nature hypothesis. I have conjectured that dark energy has negative gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy, while dark matter has positive gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial...

view entire post

view entire post

David,

It is said that the most important word in poetry is "like". Your essay is the closest thing to a poem I have seen in this contest. This work is a complex network of similes. I hope you do well in the contest and it was interesting and enjoyable reading your work.

Sincerely,

Jeff

report post as inappropriate

It is said that the most important word in poetry is "like". Your essay is the closest thing to a poem I have seen in this contest. This work is a complex network of similes. I hope you do well in the contest and it was interesting and enjoyable reading your work.

Sincerely,

Jeff

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for your interest in my ideas. Your remark "... Those MOND-chameleon particles sound fun and I hope you are correct about them ..." from the thread on your essay is not really a good hope from my viewpoint. My basic theory is an interpretation of string theory with the finite nature hypothesis. I say that the 3 main predictions of my theory are: the Fernández-Rañada-Milgrom effect, the...

view entire post

view entire post

David,

Wow, you referenced my response to your thread! Your work is a complex work of art. I like to start simple and not travel far afield. If you think of time as a function of entropy then things get simple. Take the Coriolis force, it is non-conservative, but only exists because one is unknowingly in a rotating reference frame. A point charge in a magnetic field is in such rotating reference frame. Charge is gage invariant, but magnetic field is not, so your magnetic mono-pole would disappear in some reference frames. The spin of an electron, which is related to magnetic fields is invariant. If we look at type I superconductors, they produce a magnetic field due to current flow, yet do not have heat flow due to electrons. If we think of a state that is not changing in entropy as being undefined in time (because time is a function of entropy) then we can have momentum and the magnetic field due to momentum without the particles "moving". A spin state could be the same non-moving, time undefined, angular momentum.

Jeff

report post as inappropriate

Wow, you referenced my response to your thread! Your work is a complex work of art. I like to start simple and not travel far afield. If you think of time as a function of entropy then things get simple. Take the Coriolis force, it is non-conservative, but only exists because one is unknowingly in a rotating reference frame. A point charge in a magnetic field is in such rotating reference frame. Charge is gage invariant, but magnetic field is not, so your magnetic mono-pole would disappear in some reference frames. The spin of an electron, which is related to magnetic fields is invariant. If we look at type I superconductors, they produce a magnetic field due to current flow, yet do not have heat flow due to electrons. If we think of a state that is not changing in entropy as being undefined in time (because time is a function of entropy) then we can have momentum and the magnetic field due to momentum without the particles "moving". A spin state could be the same non-moving, time undefined, angular momentum.

Jeff

report post as inappropriate

Hi David

There were a number of aha moments for me when I read your essay - hierarchy of experimental physics trumping all other fields going all the way down to philosophy, as well as the delightful quotes from distinguished people like Witten, Wolfram and Crick. I must confess I have a real soft spot for quotes since I too have used them extensively in my essay. The reading list was quite a nice touch too. I have rated your essay accordingly.

I would also include in the reading list some titles from the fields of Constitutional Law and Economics. This is because I think the intelligence of systems can be understood from the extrinsic side (Constitutional nation state) as well, if the direct route to it through consciousness should prove too arduous. Admittedly, the concept of consciousness cannot even begin to be compared to the phenomenon of Constitutional Government, but we may be able to make progress on understanding some other aspects of the mind (like intelligence) by approaching it from the extrinsic side. At least, my essay is premised on it.

Looking forward to read some of the titles in your list!

Regards, Willy

report post as inappropriate

There were a number of aha moments for me when I read your essay - hierarchy of experimental physics trumping all other fields going all the way down to philosophy, as well as the delightful quotes from distinguished people like Witten, Wolfram and Crick. I must confess I have a real soft spot for quotes since I too have used them extensively in my essay. The reading list was quite a nice touch too. I have rated your essay accordingly.

I would also include in the reading list some titles from the fields of Constitutional Law and Economics. This is because I think the intelligence of systems can be understood from the extrinsic side (Constitutional nation state) as well, if the direct route to it through consciousness should prove too arduous. Admittedly, the concept of consciousness cannot even begin to be compared to the phenomenon of Constitutional Government, but we may be able to make progress on understanding some other aspects of the mind (like intelligence) by approaching it from the extrinsic side. At least, my essay is premised on it.

Looking forward to read some of the titles in your list!

Regards, Willy

report post as inappropriate

"... soft spot for quotes ..." Many quotations are valuable guides that point out the good way to follow and/or the bad way to avoid. Consider the following quote from Crick's "What Mad Pursuit":

"Theorists almost always become too fond of their own ideas, often simply by living with them for so long."

"What Mad Pursuit" by Francis Crick, page 141

"Theorists almost always become too fond of their own ideas, often simply by living with them for so long."

"What Mad Pursuit" by Francis Crick, page 141

Dear Mr. Brown

About your ideas:

(1) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology, and MOND will provide the basis for the empirically valid interpretation of string theory.

I think that MOND is better aproach than solution with dark matter. But, Milgrom will be Kepler of the of contemporary cosmology when he find some predictive formulas in Cosmology.

(2) The Koide formula is essential for understanding the foundations of physics.

About The Koide formula you can find solution here: viXra:1509.0135 or here: http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View

/5605

Regards,

Branko

report post as inappropriate

About your ideas:

(1) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology, and MOND will provide the basis for the empirically valid interpretation of string theory.

I think that MOND is better aproach than solution with dark matter. But, Milgrom will be Kepler of the of contemporary cosmology when he find some predictive formulas in Cosmology.

(2) The Koide formula is essential for understanding the foundations of physics.

About The Koide formula you can find solution here: viXra:1509.0135 or here: http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View

/5605

Regards,

Branko

report post as inappropriate

Consider 4 hypotheses: (1) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. (2) The Koide formula is essential for understanding the foundations of physics. (3) Lestone’s theory of virtual cross sections is essential for understanding the foundations of physics. (4) My “dark-matter-compensation-constant” idea is wrong. If my basic theory is wrong, then how would I guess? Given the empirical...

view entire post

view entire post

Dear David

Well, indeed an interesting reading! Your essay is a defy, a program for lifetime research. As they say, putting the correct questions is halfway to the solution; and you are very good on doing it.

There is a question I do not even try to answer: what is consciousness? The feeling of oneself, where does it come from? Of course that I wander about it, I collect information, experiences, data, but what I have now is far from enough to even try an answer. Trying to put it as a consequence of evolution, or of the size of the brain, is irrelevant – or of the size of a program… although indeed sometimes I think that my computers with windows do have consciousness… free will… and a bad temper too…

You say that complex functions are obtainable by simple programs; and I do agree with you! Indeed, it’s because of it that I think that we can understand the universe, because all its apparent complexity has always shown to be the result of processes as simple as possible – and that is my line of research, always to look for the simplest explanations, no matter how unlike they may seem at first. Complex, transcendental explanations and theories are mostly the fruit of our ignorance, although usually a necessary step in the discovery process – so I think.

My essay presents answers; indeed, no other essay in this contest presents so many answers – in this aspect we complement each other: your essay holds the record of questions (good questions, not whatever question) and mine the record of answers (sound answers, not speculative ones). I think that you would like to see it – at least I would like to know your opinion.

I have seen many essays but so far only a few captured my interest and yours is one of them – this does not mean that they are bad, it is just a matter of fields of interests and of style. I am not a judge, but as I have to vote, I vote in accordance with the interest an essay in me arouses.

All the best,

Alfredo

report post as inappropriate

Well, indeed an interesting reading! Your essay is a defy, a program for lifetime research. As they say, putting the correct questions is halfway to the solution; and you are very good on doing it.

There is a question I do not even try to answer: what is consciousness? The feeling of oneself, where does it come from? Of course that I wander about it, I collect information, experiences, data, but what I have now is far from enough to even try an answer. Trying to put it as a consequence of evolution, or of the size of the brain, is irrelevant – or of the size of a program… although indeed sometimes I think that my computers with windows do have consciousness… free will… and a bad temper too…

You say that complex functions are obtainable by simple programs; and I do agree with you! Indeed, it’s because of it that I think that we can understand the universe, because all its apparent complexity has always shown to be the result of processes as simple as possible – and that is my line of research, always to look for the simplest explanations, no matter how unlike they may seem at first. Complex, transcendental explanations and theories are mostly the fruit of our ignorance, although usually a necessary step in the discovery process – so I think.

My essay presents answers; indeed, no other essay in this contest presents so many answers – in this aspect we complement each other: your essay holds the record of questions (good questions, not whatever question) and mine the record of answers (sound answers, not speculative ones). I think that you would like to see it – at least I would like to know your opinion.

I have seen many essays but so far only a few captured my interest and yours is one of them – this does not mean that they are bad, it is just a matter of fields of interests and of style. I am not a judge, but as I have to vote, I vote in accordance with the interest an essay in me arouses.

All the best,

Alfredo

report post as inappropriate

From your essay, 'Decoding the "Intelligence" of the Universe' (page 2), "Our knowledge is grounded in deduction; however, the process leading to the solution is usually not deduction." Let us suppose that we are confronted with an array of problems and some hypotheses or suggestions for possible solutions to the array of problems. Specifically, consider problems related to investing money. According to Warren Buffett, "Draw a circle around the businesses you understand and then eliminate those that fail to qualify on the basis of value, good management and limited exposure to hard times. … Buy into a company because you want to own it, not because you want the stock to go up."

Warren Buffett, Wikiquote

Is good decision-making more likely to result from intuition, common-sense, and experience rather than rules, high IQ, and deduction? If you are confronted with an alleged fact, should you always ask yourself, "What do people with ulterior motives have to gain or lose from my belief in this alleged fact?"

Warren Buffett, Wikiquote

Is good decision-making more likely to result from intuition, common-sense, and experience rather than rules, high IQ, and deduction? If you are confronted with an alleged fact, should you always ask yourself, "What do people with ulterior motives have to gain or lose from my belief in this alleged fact?"

David, the precedent commentary was made by me, but I was not logged in, sorry

Alfredo Gouveia Oliveira

report post as inappropriate

Alfredo Gouveia Oliveira

report post as inappropriate

Consider some speculators on pole masses, running masses, the string landscape, and Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections.

Depending on the renormalization scheme, running masses differ from pole masses. I say that my 3 most important ideas are:

(1) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology.

“The failures of the standard model of cosmology require a new...

view entire post

Depending on the renormalization scheme, running masses differ from pole masses. I say that my 3 most important ideas are:

(1) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology.

“The failures of the standard model of cosmology require a new...

view entire post

According to a 2016 publication by Verlinde, on page 13 “We like to emphasize that we have not derived the theory of modified Newtonian dynamics as proposed by Milgrom.” On page 43, “In order to explain the observed phenomena we did not postulate the existence of a dark matter particle, nor did we modify the gravitational laws in an adhoc way. Instead we have tried to understand their origin...

view entire post

view entire post

Consider 2 questions: Is there a unified theory of mathematics and theoretical physics? Is there a unified theory of mathematics, theoretical physics, and theoretical computer science?

According to Sheldon Glashow, “String theory has had an impact on modern mathematics. ... But in and of itself, it has failed in its primary goal, which is to incorporate what we already know into a...

view entire post

According to Sheldon Glashow, “String theory has had an impact on modern mathematics. ... But in and of itself, it has failed in its primary goal, which is to incorporate what we already know into a...

view entire post

Let us assume that my basic theory (i.e. string theory with the finite nature hypothesis) is empirically invalid. In that case I would bet on MOND-chameleon particles, Khoury-Weltman-chameleon particles, and MOND-Khoury-Weltman-chameleon particles within the context of the string landscape.

Euclidean geometry generalizes to Riemannian geometry, which provides the mathematical basis for...

view entire post

Euclidean geometry generalizes to Riemannian geometry, which provides the mathematical basis for...

view entire post

“How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intentions?” Physics deals with time, space, energy, measurement, information, and symmetry. In algebraic geometry, can time and energy be introduced in various ways? What is mathematics? What is the role of mathematics in understanding reality? Is mathematics that part of conscious thought that is precise, logically consistent, and...

view entire post

view entire post

Is Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science" one of the greatest books ever written? Consider 3 possibilities: (1) Wolfram's cosmological automaton is philosophically correct and empirically useful. (2) Wolfram's cosmological automaton is philosophically correct and empirically useless. (3) Wolfram's cosmological automaton is philosophically incorrect and empirically useless. Which of the 3 preceding alternatives would the majority of string theorists choose? My guess is that the string theorists are wrong about the finite nature hypothesis but correct in assuming that they have found the mathematical way to geometrize quantum probability amplitudes so as to unify quantum field theory and general relativity theory. Is the preceding guess wrong? Google "yang-mills and mass gap". The Millennial Problem "Yang-Mills and Mass Gap" might turn to have a solution or to have no solutions. According to Jaffe & Witten (in the official description of the problem), ".. one does not yet have a mathematically complete example of a quantum gauge theory in four-dimensional space-time, nor even a precise definition of quantum gauge theory in four dimensions." I conjecture that if string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis is empirically valid, then the Yang-Mills and Mass Gap Problem has a mathematically satisfactory solution with a mathematically complete example. I also conjecture that if string theory with the finite nature hypothesis is empirically valid, then the Yang-Mills and Mass Gap Problem has an approximate solution but not a satisfactory mathematical solution in a precise axiomatic framework with a mathematically complete example.

Have string theorists underestimated Milgrom? Is MOND the basis for a conceptual revolution in the foundations of physics? I say that the world’s 3 greatest living scientists are James D. Watson, Sydney Brenner, and Professor Milgrom of the Weizmann Institute. Is string theory on the right track?

According to Wikipedia, “The string theory landscape refers to the huge number of possible...

view entire post

According to Wikipedia, “The string theory landscape refers to the huge number of possible...

view entire post

What is randomness? Why does randomness exist? Are success and failure always the results of a mixture of causality and randomness? Do people always run the risk of being destroyed by their own failures or being destroyed by their own successes? Why is success a danger? A method, strategy, or lifestyle that leads to success might create overconfidence, complacency, or unanticipated dangers. Some...

view entire post

view entire post

“Sheldon Glashow … He received his Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1959, and went on to win the Nobel Prize for his work on unification of the fundamental forces of nature. He is a skeptic of string theory due to its lack of experimental support, going so far as to resign from the faculty at Harvard University in 2000 due to the physics department's focus on string theory...

view entire post

view entire post

QUOTED FROM THE NY TIMES (published Jan. 1988):

Isidor I. Rabi, the Nobel laureate in physics who died Jan. 11, was once asked, ''Why did you become a scientist, rather than a doctor or lawyer or businessman, like the other immigrant kids in your neighborhood?'' ...

The question was posed to Dr. Rabi by his friend and mine, Arthur Sackler, himself a multitalented genius, who, sadly,...

view entire post

Isidor I. Rabi, the Nobel laureate in physics who died Jan. 11, was once asked, ''Why did you become a scientist, rather than a doctor or lawyer or businessman, like the other immigrant kids in your neighborhood?'' ...

The question was posed to Dr. Rabi by his friend and mine, Arthur Sackler, himself a multitalented genius, who, sadly,...

view entire post

“How can quantum gravity help explain the origin of the universe?” — Edward Witten

Strings 2000 Conference - Physics Problems for the Next Millennium, theory.caltech.edu/~preskill

Is there a unified theory of mathematics and theoretical physics? Is mathematics that part of human thought which is precise, logically consistent, and fundamentally important? My guess is that, over...

view entire post

Strings 2000 Conference - Physics Problems for the Next Millennium, theory.caltech.edu/~preskill

Is there a unified theory of mathematics and theoretical physics? Is mathematics that part of human thought which is precise, logically consistent, and fundamentally important? My guess is that, over...

view entire post

If, at the most fundamental level, string theory occurs in nature as Calabi-Yau manifolds and curling up of extra spatial dimensions, then my guess is that Witten is the Newton-Einstein of contemporary cosmology. If, at the most fundamental level, string theory occurs in nature as finite digital approximations to Fredkin-Wolfram information somehow connected with the Leech lattice, then my guess...

view entire post

view entire post

Consider 3 conjectures: (1) The basic epistemological path of string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis is to explain the foundations of physics by introducing the string landscape and modifying the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. (2) The basic epistemological path of string theory with the finite nature hypothesis is to explain the foundations of physics by introducing Wolfram’s...

view entire post

view entire post

“One can give good reasons why reality cannot at all be represented by a continuous field. From the quantum phenomena it appears to follow with certainty that a finite system of energy can be completely described by a finite set of numbers (quantum numbers). This does not seem to be in accordance with a continuum theory, and must lead to find a purely algebraic theory for the description of...

view entire post

view entire post

“… ultimately we’re just physical entities, governed by the laws of physics. So an obvious question is what those laws ultimately are. And, you know, the world view that I’ve developed has a lot to say about that too. Ultimately the real question is: if our universe is governed by definite rules, it must in effect be one of those programs that’s out there in the computational universe....

view entire post

view entire post

I say that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology — on the basis of empirical evidence which now exists. Did the Gravity Probe B science seriously consider the possible implications of the many empirical successes of...

view entire post

“One is left with the uneasy feeling that even if supersymmetry is actually *false*, as a feature of nature, and that accordingly *no* supersymmetry partners are ever found by the LHC or by any later more powerful accelerator, then the conclusion that some supersymmetry proponents might come to would *not* be that supersymmetry is false for the actual particles of nature, but...

view entire post

view entire post

Many of my posts on this thread might have drifted away from the question "How can mindless laws give rise to aims and intentions?" It seems to me that the question involves issues of string theory, the foundations of physics, and artificial intelligence. For information on artificial intelligence, google "bill gates kurzweil". My guess is that string theory crucially depends on the issue of the...

view entire post

view entire post

According to a brief history of renormalization by Kerson Huang, “Particle theorists have a peculiar sensitivity to the cutoff, because they regard it as a stigma that expresses an imperfect theory. In the early days of renormalization, when the cutoff was put out of sight by renormalization, some leaped to declare that the cutoff had been “sent to infinity.” That, of course, cannot be done...

view entire post

view entire post

QUESTION 1. What is the structure of reality?

“In ordinary quantum theory, an elementary particle such as an electron is a point particle, albeit one that obeys rather subtle laws of quantum mechanics and relativity. In string theory, the starting point is to reinterpret an electron as a little vibrating loop of string, again subject to quantum mechanics and relativity. This little change...

view entire post

“In ordinary quantum theory, an elementary particle such as an electron is a point particle, albeit one that obeys rather subtle laws of quantum mechanics and relativity. In string theory, the starting point is to reinterpret an electron as a little vibrating loop of string, again subject to quantum mechanics and relativity. This little change...

view entire post

Is there a unified theory of mathematics, theoretical physics, and theoretical computer science?

According to Steven Weinberg, “Everyone knows that electronic computers have enormously helped the work of science. Some scientists have had a grander vision of the importance of the computer. They expect that it will change our view of science itself, of what it is that scientific theories...

view entire post

According to Steven Weinberg, “Everyone knows that electronic computers have enormously helped the work of science. Some scientists have had a grander vision of the importance of the computer. They expect that it will change our view of science itself, of what it is that scientific theories...

view entire post

... Fredkin is one of those people who arouse either affection, admiration, and respect, or dislike and suspicion. The latter reaction has come from a number of professors at MIT, particularly those who put a premium on formal credentials, proper academic conduct, and not sounding like a crackpot. ... Fredkin doubts that his ideas will achieve widespread acceptance anytime soon. He believes that...

view entire post

view entire post

In my previous posting at this website, the first phrase in the quotation from Fredkin should be “Digital Philosophy (DP) is a new of thinking about how things work … ” Note that my idea of Fredkin-Wolfram information is that such information cannot, in principle, be directly measured and that string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis can never be refuted (although such theory might be mathematically awkward).

On page 5 of the following article, when Fredkin refers to a “unit of Time” I suggest that “Time” should be understood as non-measurable “Fredkin time” in some as yet undescribed Fredkin-Wolfram network of information.

"Discrete Theoretical Processes" by Edward Fredkin

It seems to me that Fredkin’s terminology should be based upon Fredkin time, Fredkin distance, and Fredkin digit transition with the true meanings of such concepts depending upon a hypothetical affirmative solution of what I call “Wolfram’s Simple Rules Hypothesis”.

On page 5 of the following article, when Fredkin refers to a “unit of Time” I suggest that “Time” should be understood as non-measurable “Fredkin time” in some as yet undescribed Fredkin-Wolfram network of information.

"Discrete Theoretical Processes" by Edward Fredkin

It seems to me that Fredkin’s terminology should be based upon Fredkin time, Fredkin distance, and Fredkin digit transition with the true meanings of such concepts depending upon a hypothetical affirmative solution of what I call “Wolfram’s Simple Rules Hypothesis”.

“The existence of exotic dark matter particles outside the standard model of particle physics constitutes a central hypothesis of the correct standard model of cosmology (SmoC). Using a wide range of observational data I outline why this hypothesis cannot be correct for the real Universe.” — Pavel Kroupa

"Lessons from the Local Group (and beyond) on dark matter", 2014

My guess...

view entire post

"Lessons from the Local Group (and beyond) on dark matter", 2014

My guess...

view entire post

I say that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology.

Wikiquote for Pavel Kroupa

Wikiquote for Stacy McGaugh

Google “kroupa milgrom”, “mcgaugh milgrom”, “witten milgrom”, and “einstein 3 criticisms”.

My guess is that the Copenhagen interpretation is philosophically wrong but empirically irrefutable.

From Wolfram Alpha:

((reduced Planck mass) * (electron mass)^3)^(1/4) = 1.1 * (Higgs boson mass), where (Higgs boson mass) is approximated by 1.25 GeV/c^2

Is the preceding approximation a meaningless coincidence?

Consider a just-so story. A virtual electron-positron pair acquired a Big Bang mass. The anomalous acquisition created a 26-dimensional bosonic black hole that consisted entirely of virtual Higgs bosons and virtual electron-positron pairs. Within the 26-dimensional bosonic black hole, nonmeasurable Fredkin time equalled the reduced Planck mass, and nonmeasurable Fredkin spatial distance equalled the electron mass. The 26-dimensional bosonic black hole collapsed into a 10-dimensional GR model with measurable particles. Nonmeasurable Fredkin time and nonmeasurable Fredkin spatial distance somehow transitioned into measurable time and measurable distance with measurable particles. Shortly after the transition, each Higgs boson occupied approximately the same 4-volume as each electron, thus suggesting an approximation for the mass of a Higgs boson.

Is the preceding scenario complete nonsense?

Wikiquote for Pavel Kroupa

Wikiquote for Stacy McGaugh

Google “kroupa milgrom”, “mcgaugh milgrom”, “witten milgrom”, and “einstein 3 criticisms”.

My guess is that the Copenhagen interpretation is philosophically wrong but empirically irrefutable.

From Wolfram Alpha:

((reduced Planck mass) * (electron mass)^3)^(1/4) = 1.1 * (Higgs boson mass), where (Higgs boson mass) is approximated by 1.25 GeV/c^2

Is the preceding approximation a meaningless coincidence?

Consider a just-so story. A virtual electron-positron pair acquired a Big Bang mass. The anomalous acquisition created a 26-dimensional bosonic black hole that consisted entirely of virtual Higgs bosons and virtual electron-positron pairs. Within the 26-dimensional bosonic black hole, nonmeasurable Fredkin time equalled the reduced Planck mass, and nonmeasurable Fredkin spatial distance equalled the electron mass. The 26-dimensional bosonic black hole collapsed into a 10-dimensional GR model with measurable particles. Nonmeasurable Fredkin time and nonmeasurable Fredkin spatial distance somehow transitioned into measurable time and measurable distance with measurable particles. Shortly after the transition, each Higgs boson occupied approximately the same 4-volume as each electron, thus suggesting an approximation for the mass of a Higgs boson.

Is the preceding scenario complete nonsense?

“The failures of the standard model of cosmology require a new paradigm” by Kroupa, Pawlowski & Milgrom, 2013

Consider 7 conjectures:

(1) String with the finite nature hypothesis implies MOND and no SUSY.

(2) The Koide formula is essential for understanding string theory with the finite nature hypothesis,

(3) String vibrations are confined to 3 copies of the Leech lattice.

(4) There are 6 basic quarks because there are 6 pariah groups.

(5) The monster group and the 6 pariah groups allow energy to exist.

(6) There exists a (2/3)-Koide formula that allows some quarks to have charge ± 2/3.

(7) There exists a (1/3)-Koide formula that allows some quarks to have charge ± 1/3.

From Wolfram Alpha:

(muon mass) /(electron mass) = 206.7683

(tauon mass)/(electron mass) = 3477.48

(59^3 + 33 * 59^2 + 57 * 59 + 9 )^(1/27) - 1.59983643131952544 = 0 approx.

For a = 1.5998364, x = 206.7683, y = 3477.48,

calculate ( a^3 +(a^2) * x + a * y)/(a^3 + ( a^2) * x^.5 + a * y^.5)^2 Answer: .333333

For the polynomial x —> x^3 + 33 * x^2 + 57 * x + 9 my guess is that 33 + 26 = 59 is meaningful because of 26-dimensional bosonic string theory and the fact that the three primes 59, 59 ± 12 divide the order of the monster group. My guess is that the constant term 9 is meaningful because of Lestone’s heuristic string theory.

Consider 7 conjectures:

(1) String with the finite nature hypothesis implies MOND and no SUSY.

(2) The Koide formula is essential for understanding string theory with the finite nature hypothesis,

(3) String vibrations are confined to 3 copies of the Leech lattice.

(4) There are 6 basic quarks because there are 6 pariah groups.

(5) The monster group and the 6 pariah groups allow energy to exist.

(6) There exists a (2/3)-Koide formula that allows some quarks to have charge ± 2/3.

(7) There exists a (1/3)-Koide formula that allows some quarks to have charge ± 1/3.

From Wolfram Alpha:

(muon mass) /(electron mass) = 206.7683

(tauon mass)/(electron mass) = 3477.48

(59^3 + 33 * 59^2 + 57 * 59 + 9 )^(1/27) - 1.59983643131952544 = 0 approx.

For a = 1.5998364, x = 206.7683, y = 3477.48,

calculate ( a^3 +(a^2) * x + a * y)/(a^3 + ( a^2) * x^.5 + a * y^.5)^2 Answer: .333333

For the polynomial x —> x^3 + 33 * x^2 + 57 * x + 9 my guess is that 33 + 26 = 59 is meaningful because of 26-dimensional bosonic string theory and the fact that the three primes 59, 59 ± 12 divide the order of the monster group. My guess is that the constant term 9 is meaningful because of Lestone’s heuristic string theory.

Monstrous moonshine, wikipedia

My guess is that there might be two infinite series, both involving the (1/3)-Koide polynomial, yielding a numerical expression for Wolframian pseudo-supersymmetry.

Note that:

(59^3 + 33 * 59^2 + 57 * 59 + 9)/78^3 - .6819568772231494 = 0 approx.

72^3 / (72^3 + 33 * 72^2 + 57 * 72 + 9) = .680571738... approx.

Here the number 78 represents 3 copies of bosonic string theory, and the number 72 represents 3 copies of the Leech lattice.

The percentage of dark energy is the universe is about 68.3 %.

Planck 2013 results

My guess is that there might be two infinite series, both involving the (1/3)-Koide polynomial, yielding a numerical expression for Wolframian pseudo-supersymmetry.

Note that:

(59^3 + 33 * 59^2 + 57 * 59 + 9)/78^3 - .6819568772231494 = 0 approx.

72^3 / (72^3 + 33 * 72^2 + 57 * 72 + 9) = .680571738... approx.

Here the number 78 represents 3 copies of bosonic string theory, and the number 72 represents 3 copies of the Leech lattice.

The percentage of dark energy is the universe is about 68.3 %.

Planck 2013 results

From Wolfram Alpha:

(1 + 1/2.5 + 1/2.5^2 + 1/2.5^3 + 1/2.5^4 )^(1/24) / (1 + 1/47) = .99980215…

(1 + 1/2.5 + 1/2.5^2 + 1/2.5^3 + 1/2.5^4 + 1/2.5^5)^(1/24) / (1 + 1/47) = 1.0000600...

(1 + 1/3 + 1/3^2 + 1/3^3 + 1/3^4 )^(1/24) / (1 + 1/59) = .9999154432...

(1 + 1/3 + 1/3^2 + 1/3^3 + 1/3^4 + 1/3^5)^(1/24) / (1 + 1/59) = 1.00003006648...

(1 + 1/3.5 + 1/3.5^2 + 1/3.5^3 + 1/3.5^4 )^(1/24) / (1 + 1/71) = .99995403...

(1 + 1/3.5 + 1/3.5^2 + 1/3.5^3 + 1/3.5^4 + 1/3.5^5)^(1/24) / (1 + 1/71) = 1.0000108...

Do the 6 preceding estimates have something to do with the Leech lattice, the monster group, and the foundations of physics?

Leech lattice, Wikipedia

Monster group, Wikipedia

(1 + 1/2.5 + 1/2.5^2 + 1/2.5^3 + 1/2.5^4 )^(1/24) / (1 + 1/47) = .99980215…

(1 + 1/2.5 + 1/2.5^2 + 1/2.5^3 + 1/2.5^4 + 1/2.5^5)^(1/24) / (1 + 1/47) = 1.0000600...

(1 + 1/3 + 1/3^2 + 1/3^3 + 1/3^4 )^(1/24) / (1 + 1/59) = .9999154432...

(1 + 1/3 + 1/3^2 + 1/3^3 + 1/3^4 + 1/3^5)^(1/24) / (1 + 1/59) = 1.00003006648...

(1 + 1/3.5 + 1/3.5^2 + 1/3.5^3 + 1/3.5^4 )^(1/24) / (1 + 1/71) = .99995403...

(1 + 1/3.5 + 1/3.5^2 + 1/3.5^3 + 1/3.5^4 + 1/3.5^5)^(1/24) / (1 + 1/71) = 1.0000108...

Do the 6 preceding estimates have something to do with the Leech lattice, the monster group, and the foundations of physics?

Leech lattice, Wikipedia

Monster group, Wikipedia

I say that my 3 most important ideas are: (1) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. (2) The Koide formula is essential for understanding the foundations of physics. (3) Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections is essential for understanding the foundations of physics.

The axion is coupled to the electromagnetic field in ways that should be testable.

Sikivie, P., 1983....

view entire post

The axion is coupled to the electromagnetic field in ways that should be testable.

Sikivie, P., 1983....

view entire post

embarrassing typo ... The last sentence should be:

If most of the proton charge radius puzzle can be explained by uncertainty in estimating the finite structure constant due to unexpected axion detection, then (1.2 ± 1.0) * 10^-4 eV/c^2 might be a plausible estimate for the axion mass.

If most of the proton charge radius puzzle can be explained by uncertainty in estimating the finite structure constant due to unexpected axion detection, then (1.2 ± 1.0) * 10^-4 eV/c^2 might be a plausible estimate for the axion mass.

According to John P. Lestone, “If black holes (once thought to be point objects) are amenable to statistical mechanics, then why not fundamental particles like leptons? (1988)”

“Possible path for the calculation of the fine structure constant”, Los Alamos Report LA-UR-16-22121, 4 April 2016

Is my basic theory (i.e. string theory with the finite nature theory) wrong?...

view entire post

“Possible path for the calculation of the fine structure constant”, Los Alamos Report LA-UR-16-22121, 4 April 2016

Is my basic theory (i.e. string theory with the finite nature theory) wrong?...

view entire post

I say that my three most important ideas are: (Idea 1) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. (Idea 2) The Koide formula is essential for understanding the foundations of physics. (3) Lestone’s theory of virtual cross sections is essential for understanding the foundations of physics. How might (Idea 3) be tested?

John P. Lestone of Los Alamos National Laboratory has suggested a...

view entire post

John P. Lestone of Los Alamos National Laboratory has suggested a...

view entire post

Login or create account to post reply or comment.