Search FQXi


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.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest


Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.

Previous Contests

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/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

David Brown: on 2/26/17 at 21:24pm UTC, wrote Replace the error by "... it is impressive that so much agreement has been...

David Brown: on 2/26/17 at 20:54pm UTC, wrote In my essay for this fqxi contest, I noticed an error in my quotation from...

David Brown: on 2/26/17 at 15:00pm UTC, wrote I conjecture that paradigm-breaking photons caused by inverse Compton...

David Brown: on 2/24/17 at 16:42pm UTC, wrote Is Lestone’s theory of virtual cross sections essential for the...

Satyavarapu Gupta: on 2/20/17 at 22:26pm UTC, wrote Dear David Brown I have some observations…. You said in your...

David Brown: on 2/20/17 at 14:01pm UTC, wrote Do the predictive successes of Milgrom’s MOdified Newtonian Dynamics...

Steve Dufourny: on 2/20/17 at 9:19am UTC, wrote Thanks for sharing.It is relevant all this for the fractalisation of our...

David Brown: on 2/19/17 at 17:00pm UTC, wrote "The development of science, from ancient times to the present, has been a...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jose Koshy: "James Putnam, What do you mean by the acceleration of light? Do you mean..." in Alternative Models of...

Jose Koshy: "Steven, Because we are not sitting face to face, I may not be replying..." in Alternative Models of...

Algernon kk: "Steve Agnew is a legend for doing that. A lot of people at online resume..." in Weinberg: Why quantum...

Mohan rao: "Voot app free download Flash Recovery" in Time in Physics & Entropy...

Mohan rao: "My partner and I stumbled over here different website and thought I might..." in Time in Physics & Entropy...

Gary Simpson: "Ted, BTW, it is the community vote that matters ... not the public vote...." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Gary Simpson: "Ted, You statement regarding your score does not make any sense. You..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Algernon kk: "Steve Agnew is a legend for doing that. A lot of people at custom..." in Weinberg: Why quantum...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Quantum Replicants: Should future androids dream of quantum sheep?
To build the ultimate artificial mimics of real life systems, we may need to use quantum memory.

Painting a QBist Picture of Reality
A radical interpretation of physics makes quantum theory more personal.

The Spacetime Revolutionary
Carlo Rovelli describes how black holes may transition to "white holes," according to loop quantum gravity, a radical rewrite of fundamental physics.

Riding the Rogue Quantum Waves
Could giant sea swells help explain how the macroscopic world emerges from the quantum microworld? (Image credit: MIT News)

Rescuing Reality
A "retrocausal" rewrite of physics, in which influences from the future can affect the past, could solve some quantum quandaries—saving Einstein's view of reality along the way.


FQXi FORUM
February 28, 2017

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
TOPIC: Milgromian Cosmology, Wolframian Computing, and Primate Consciousness by David Brown [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

This essay's rating: Community = 5.6; Public = 4.8


Author David Brown wrote on Jan. 12, 2017 @ 21:10 GMT
Essay Abstract

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.

Author Bio

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

Download Essay PDF File




John Edward LaMuth wrote on Jan. 13, 2017 @ 23:18 GMT
Mr Brown

I greatly appreciate your conclusions concerning primate consc...

Best

John L

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 15, 2017 @ 19:57 GMT
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

Author David Brown replied on Jan. 16, 2017 @ 04:48 GMT
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



Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 16, 2017 @ 09:22 GMT
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


Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 16, 2017 @ 16:33 GMT
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


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 20, 2017 @ 09:58 GMT
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

Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 20, 2017 @ 10:04 GMT
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


Joseph J. Jean-Claude wrote on Jan. 21, 2017 @ 14:21 GMT
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


Stephen I. Ternyik wrote on Jan. 21, 2017 @ 14:38 GMT
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

Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 21, 2017 @ 19:50 GMT
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

Stephen I. Ternyik replied on Jan. 21, 2017 @ 21:45 GMT
Mr. Dufourny, please look for my responde at your LinkedIn account. Best: S.Ternyik

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 22, 2017 @ 17:47 GMT
Thanks Mr Ternyik

all the best

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Jan. 25, 2017 @ 10:19 GMT
A cornucopia of interesting-ness. I too think Wolfram's cellular automata have interesting things to show and "tell".

report post as inappropriate


Don C Foster wrote on Feb. 4, 2017 @ 23:05 GMT
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

Author David Brown replied on Feb. 5, 2017 @ 14:39 GMT
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."



Author David Brown replied on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 03:25 GMT
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.




James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 7, 2017 @ 20:19 GMT
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

Author David Brown replied on Feb. 7, 2017 @ 20:33 GMT
For more information, google "mcgaugh dark matter", "mcgaugh dark matter youtube", "kroupa dark matter", "kroupa dark matter youtube", "wolfram automaton", and "david brown vixra".




Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 9, 2017 @ 18:00 GMT
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

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Feb. 20, 2017 @ 22:26 GMT
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


Author David Brown wrote on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 08:55 GMT
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?



Author David Brown replied on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 11:02 GMT
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"



Author David Brown replied on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 14:07 GMT
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.




Author David Brown wrote on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 14:31 GMT
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?




Author David Brown wrote on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 12:49 GMT
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?




Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 14:09 GMT
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

Author David Brown replied on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 17:37 GMT
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




Author David Brown wrote on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 07:43 GMT
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.



Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 12:47 GMT
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

Author David Brown replied on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 13:22 GMT
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 ..."



Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 20, 2017 @ 09:19 GMT
Thanks for sharing.It is relevant all this for the fractalisation of our scales.

All the best.

report post as inappropriate


Author David Brown wrote on Feb. 19, 2017 @ 09:10 GMT
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.




Author David Brown wrote on Feb. 19, 2017 @ 17:00 GMT
"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





Author David Brown wrote on Feb. 20, 2017 @ 14:01 GMT
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.




Author David Brown wrote on Feb. 24, 2017 @ 16:42 GMT
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





Author David Brown wrote on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 15:00 GMT
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





Author David Brown wrote on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 20:54 GMT
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 ..."



Author David Brown replied on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 21:24 GMT
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.




Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:

And select the letter between 'S' and 'U':


Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.