CATEGORY:
Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015)
[back]
TOPIC:
String Theory and Milgrom's Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) by David Brown
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author David Brown wrote on Jan. 9, 2015 @ 22:27 GMT
Essay AbstractString theory might be the ‘only game in town’ for the unification of quantum field theory and general relativity theory. In 1983 the Israeli astrophysicist Mordehai Milgrom challenged Newtonian theory in terms of non-relativistic astronomical phenomenon associated with hypothetical dark matter. Over 30 years later the challenge remains controversial and unconvincing to most string theorists.
Author BioDavid Brown has an M.A. in mathematics from Princeton University and was for a number of years a computer programmer.
Download Essay PDF File
Philip Gibbs wrote on Jan. 10, 2015 @ 09:55 GMT
David, this is a nice start for the contest. It is interesting that MOND explains some features of galaxy dynamics that dark matter might not, but it fails with galactic clusters. MOND is incompatible with general relativity but string theory predicts GR, so it is not hard to see why string theorists would reject MOND. I think you would have to say more about how you see string theory being modified to get their attention.
You ask "(1) To what extent does string theory unify physics
and mathematics? (2) To what extent can physics an
d mathematics be unified?" These are interesting questions, but what do you think the answers are?
report post as inappropriate
Author David Brown replied on Jan. 10, 2015 @ 14:35 GMT
Phil Gibbs: I, along with many scientists or would-be scientists, owe you a great debt of gratitude for providing vixra.org . People say I am a crackpot and they are correct. My method is to generate hundreds of crackpot ideas and see if any provide testable predictions which might be correct. J. Christian has pointed out (correctly) that I am an incompetent physicist. I am not like Newton who...
view entire post
Phil Gibbs: I, along with many scientists or would-be scientists, owe you a great debt of gratitude for providing vixra.org . People say I am a crackpot and they are correct. My method is to generate hundreds of crackpot ideas and see if any provide testable predictions which might be correct. J. Christian has pointed out (correctly) that I am an incompetent physicist. I am not like Newton who attempted to stand on the shoulders of giants ... I am more the birdbrain who flies to the top of the giant's head and creates a nuisance. We have 2 questions: To what extent does string theory unify physics and mathematics? To what extent can physics and mathematics be unified? These questions might be better directed to string theorists who have won Yuri Milner's Prize: Witten, Seiberg, Maldacena, Green, Schwarz, Sen, Polyakov, Arkani-Hamed ... or to Fields Medalists acquainted with string theory (with Witten being the only member of both sets). How should string theory be modified so as to dampen the doubters such as Woit? Who can teach the string theorists how to improve their science?
"Tristo é lo discepolo che non avanza il suo maestro." - Leonard da Vinci, Codex Forster III, 66 v
Sadly inadequate is the student that does not surpass the teacher.
"While one should certainly try to think which lines are worth pursuing and which are not, it is wise to be very cautious about one's own arguments, especially when the subject is an important one, since then the cost of missing a useful approach is high." - Francis Crick "What Mad Pursuit", pages 112-113
"It is astonishing how one simple incorrect idea can envelop the subject in a dense fog." - Francis Crick, "What Mad Pursuit", page 140
Consider two quotations from Bohr: "How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress." "Every sentence I utter must be understood not as an affirmation, but as a question."
Milgrom, McGaugh, Kroupa, and Pawlowski have provided us with the paradox. Where is the progress? My guess is it's in the experimental data collected by the Gravity Probe B science team.
Consider this argument:
Premise A: Milgrom's MOND is empirically valid.
Premise B: MOND suggests that Newtonian-Einsteinian gravitational theory is significantly wrong.
Possible Conclusion: The Gravity Probe B science team might have made a mistake by ignoring MOND.
Here is a plan related to MOND and the Gravity Probe B data. From empirical evidence we know that Einstein's field equations are approximately empirically valid. In the standard form of Einstein's field equations replace the -1/2 by -1/2 + gravitational-discrepancy-function, where this function (of unknown parameters) has magnitude small with respect to 1/2. The Gravity Probe B science team members allege that their 4 ultra-precise gyroscopes malfunctioned in a surprisingly predictable way. For the sake of scientific thoroughness, it might be a good idea to have 2 independent teams of researchers analyze the Gravity Probe B data assuming that the 4 gyroscopes functioned to within design specifications. Instead of a predictable 4-fold malfunction, the gyroscopes might have indicated a nonzero gravitational-discrepancy-function that is empirically valid. It might be possible to persuade 2 astrophysicists to independently apply for grants and independently act as Principal Investigators for two independent projects dedicated to analyzing the Gravity Probe B data. How can 2 such astrophysicists be located?
view post as summary
Philip Gibbs replied on Jan. 11, 2015 @ 09:45 GMT
David, you raise some interesting questions which is why I am always happy to see anyone get involved in science. I like your quotes from Crick.
The questions about unifying maths and string theory are very important. My view is that this is central to future progress. In my essay I speculate that a structure leading to string theory emerges from a principle of universality in mathematics. The work of Nima Arkani-Hamed is the most obvious lead towards understanding the fundamentals of string theory (see e.g. his recent short talk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9LwPkijT10 ) There are also people looking at the application of n-category to string theory such as John Baez and Urs Schreiber. I find the abstraction hard to follow but I am sure it will emerge as important work and I think that a very general n-categorical structure could be what unifies maths and string theory.
Keep asking good questions!
report post as inappropriate
Author David Brown replied on Jan. 11, 2015 @ 11:42 GMT
"The questions about unifying maths and string theory are very important." To what extent can string theory plumb the depths of nature? At the U. of Chicago, Professor Chandrasekhar said to me, "Nature is deeper than any scientist's theory." One might divide mathematics into 6 major areas: algebra/category theory, mathematical analysis, applied mathematics/differential equations/numerical...
view entire post
"The questions about unifying maths and string theory are very important." To what extent can string theory plumb the depths of nature? At the U. of Chicago, Professor Chandrasekhar said to me, "Nature is deeper than any scientist's theory." One might divide mathematics into 6 major areas: algebra/category theory, mathematical analysis, applied mathematics/differential equations/numerical analysis, geometry/topology, set theory/mathematical logic/theoretical computer science, and probability/statistics (see https://math.berkeley.edu/research/areas). In the future, each of these 6 major areas might have a formulation in terms of string theory.
In reply to an email request for criticism concerning my essay, Professor Edward Witten has kindly provided the following comments:
"Dear Mr. Brown,
I think the best answer to your question is that the opinions of string theorists about MOND are not very important, what is more important are the opinions of astronomers who really know well all the data. However, I can see a lot of obvious reasons that people are skeptical about MOND. For example, gravitational lenses were discovered after MOND was put forward, and dark matter appears to participate in lensing as one would expect in General Relativity. The universe is a complicated place with a lot of colliding galaxies, clusters of galaxies, large scale structure etc. General Relativity gives a description of all this that appears to work as far as we can test it, which is a lot although not everything one would want to test. MOND is a sort of one-galaxy-at-a-time description so it is probably hard to apply MOND to a lot of things. Finally, one really has to stand on one's head to reconcile MOND with what is well-established about relativistic physics, and the results are pretty obscure and far-fetched looking. None of these comments, however, have anything at all to do with string theory. They are just based on physics that is much better-established and down-to-earth."
Let us assume my quantum theory of gravity ("Wolframian string theory") is empirically wrong. Through study of the work of McGaugh and Kroupa, I strongly believe 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. My guess is that the majority of experts on dark matter are incorrect and that Milgrom, McGaugh, Kroupa, and Pawlowski are correct. Consider 2 quotations:
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." - Einstein
"Theorists almost always become too fond of their own ideas, often simply by living with them for so long." - Francis Crick, "What Mad Pursuit", page 141
The empirical evidence backs Milgrom, McGaugh, Kroupa, and Pawlowski, in so far as my judgment has any validity whatsoever.
view post as summary
Philip Gibbs replied on Jan. 11, 2015 @ 12:57 GMT
It's nice that Witten took the time to respond to your question. I am sure he does not have time to respond to everything he gets.
I agree with what Witten says. These are very strong arguments against MOND. However I also agree that we must question authority and keep trying to look at things in different ways, because nobody yet has all the answers. If you want to make progress with MOND you need to come up with counterarguments and new evidence. I think it is better to do this is public forums like here rather than private communications.
So ask yourself why you really think the evidence supports MOND and why the arguments that some evidence disputes it is wrong. You need to get into specific details.
report post as inappropriate
Author David Brown replied on Jan. 11, 2015 @ 13:37 GMT
"... get into specific details." From McGaugh's MOND PAGES, "When we measure the amount of luminous mass (stars and gas) in these systems and apply Newton's Law of Gravity, the observed mass falls well short of the amount required to explain the observed orbital speeds. This is the mass discrepancy. There are two logical possibilities to explain the observed mass discrepancies:
Either Most...
view entire post
"... get into specific details." From McGaugh's MOND PAGES, "When we measure the amount of luminous mass (stars and gas) in these systems and apply Newton's Law of Gravity, the observed mass falls well short of the amount required to explain the observed orbital speeds. This is the mass discrepancy. There are two logical possibilities to explain the observed mass discrepancies:
Either Most of the Mass in the Universe is Invisible (Dark Matter), or Dynamical Laws must be Modified (MOND).
There are significant challenges to both ideas. Issues for MOND:
Can a modified force law explain all observations?
Can a satisfactory theory encompassing both General Relativity and MOND be found?
Issues for Dark Matter:
Does the stuff we call Dark Matter really exist?
Can a dark matter based theory explain the MONDian phenomenology observed in rotation curves?
Why should the mass discrepancy only appear at a particular acceleration scale?"
It appears to me that there are 2 basic alternatives: (1) Newtonian-Einsteinian gravitational theory is 100% correct but appears to wrong for some unknown reason (weird quantum effect based upon the string landscape?) OR (2) Newtonian-Einsteinian gravitational theory really is significantly wrong. For the 1st alternative I posted some dubious speculations at NKS Forum Applied NKS. What if the 2nd alternative is true?
What is the simplest interpretation of Milgrom's MOND? The answer might be that the law of conservation of gravitational energy is false. Consider Einstein's "The Meaning of Relativity", 5th edition, page 84. Concerning the fundamental geometric tensor, Einstein wrote "3. Its divergence must vanish identically. ... it may be proved that this third condition requires a to have the value -1/2." I say that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology and that the constant a should be -1/2 + dark-matter-compensation-constant, where this dark-matter-compensation-constant is some very small positive number to be determined by experiment. I claim that an easy scaling argument shows that this idea is approximately equivalent to MOND. I suggest that the Gravity Probe B science team misinterpreted their own data, and that a good value for the hypothetical dark-matter-compensation-constant can be found by analyzing the Gravity Probe B data under the assumption that the 4 ultra-precise gyroscopes functioned to within design specifications. The reanalysis should decisively disconfirm or confirm my simplistic idea. My idea is that Einstein's equivalence principle is 100% true for mass-energy that is implicitly or explicitly measured and 100% false for virtual mass-energy. My guess is that dark matter is virtual mass-energy that has positive gravitational mass-energy and ZERO inertial mass-energy while dark energy is virtual mass-energy that has negative gravitational mass-energy and ZERO inertial mass-energy. By assuming that nature is finite and digital and that string vibrations are confined to 3 copies of the Leech lattice, it might be possible to justify the preceding speculative idea.
view post as summary
hide replies
Anonymous wrote on Jan. 18, 2015 @ 00:08 GMT
David,
I enjoyed your article, and especially some of your quotes. I believe good quotes are particularly relevant for essays. Particularly Witten's observation that "there is not yet any proof that the theory is relevant to physics." In my current essay I refer to this as a map that does not point to any territory. Also liked Gross's remark that "String theory is part and parcel of quantum field theory."
By the way, based on remarks of his that I've read, I'm amazed that Witten responded to you. Congratulations!
Of your three basic alternatives I would favor the second, that Newtonian-Einstein gravitational theory is correct but appears wrong because of neglect of non-linear mechanisms. The flat rotation curves are real, but MOND appears to be a 'patch' to explain them. That's just my opinion. Your suggestion that string theory could solve the problem is interesting.
Like Philip, I too like your (first) quote from Crick. My essay treats a specific case in point. I invite you to read my essay and leave an opinion.
Best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Author David Brown replied on Jan. 18, 2015 @ 13:12 GMT
Edwin: Thank you for you congratulatory sentiment. Is MOND more than a 'patch'? Is the MOND acceleration constant actually an important constant of nature — even if such a constant is not precisely defined to more than 20% ? In connection with the "dark-matter-compensation-constant" there are the questions: (1) Is such a constant consistent with the empirical facts? (2) If such a constant is consistent with the empirical facts, then what does the constant really mean in terms of the foundations of physics? Is Milgrom the Kepler of contemporary cosmology? Those researchers who are interested in the preceding question should consider a further question: Should physicists consider the problem of attempting to prove, under plausible physical hypotheses, that the Anderson-Campbell-Ekelund-Ellis-Jordan flyby anomaly formula is approximately equivalent to replacing the -1/2 in the standard form of Einstein’s field equations by -1/2 + dark-matter-compensation-constant ?
"Anomalous Orbital-Energy Changes Observed during Spacecraft Flybys of Earth" by Anderson et al., PhysRevLett, 2008Regards, David Brown
John C Hodge wrote on Jan. 22, 2015 @ 18:07 GMT
Another model for the unification of quantum field theory and general relativity theory is
Scalar Theory of Everything model correspondence to the Big Bang model and to Quantum Mechanics .
Spiral galaxy rotations curves also have an asymmetry that other models do not attempt to explain. Because ``accepted’’ physics has tried and failed (including MOND) to explain the asymmetric rotation curves, these seem ripe for a forum like FQXi. My model is
Scalar potential model of spiral galaxy HI rotation curves and rotation curve asymmetry .
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox wrote on Jan. 25, 2015 @ 20:25 GMT
David,
Very provocative in posing the questions. Also good reference articles and abstracts listing for the inquiring minds. Mond is an 'outsiders' pursuit, but does ask us to discover a correct question. I have amused myself from time to time with the notion that in the future all those solutions^500 might be seen as a naively obtained inventory of radial fluctuations of energy seeking equilibrium as an ideal spherical rest mass. Good luck, for what its worth my rating is as an amateur. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Gary D. Simpson wrote on Jan. 27, 2015 @ 23:12 GMT
David,
A pretty good read with lots of thoughtful questions. The answers can only be had through experiment and observation as you note in some of the comments.
Best Regards,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
Author David Brown replied on Jan. 28, 2015 @ 00:50 GMT
Gary,
Thank you for your comments on my essay. In your essay "Calculus - Revision 2.0" page 7, you wrote, "It is only through the comparison between prediction and experiment that we can hope to understand." Physics without prediction is unsatisfactory. String theorists need to find a way to eliminate, or at least drastically constrain, the string landscape. My guess is that Milgrom's MOND is the key to eliminating the string landscape and to making decisive, testable predictions with string theory. String theorists need to incorporate MOND into string theory. Consider the problem of attempting to prove, under plausible physical hypotheses, that the Anderson-Campbell-Ekelund-Ellis-Jordan flyby anomaly formula is approximately equivalent to replacing the -1/2 in the standard form of Einstein’s field equations by -1/2 + dark-matter-compensation-constant.
"Anomalous Orbital-Energy Changes Observed during Spacecraft Flybys of Earth" by Anderson et al., PhysRevLett, 2008Anyone interested in the foundations of physics might find to worthwhile to consider the preceding problem.
— David Brown
Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Jan. 29, 2015 @ 08:06 GMT
string theory has no bijective epistemological correspondence with physical world. It is a pure fantasy.
report post as inappropriate
Author David Brown replied on Jan. 29, 2015 @ 12:00 GMT
Amrit Sorli (Foundations Of Physics Institute): In your essay "Application of Bijective Function of Set Theory in Physics" you wrote, "Mathematics is the useful tool of physics. However out of pure mathematical laws we cannot deduce physical laws." The logical possibilities seem to be vastly greater than the physical possibilities. My guess is that vibrating strings at or below the Planck scale are a reality, in some sense. According to Burton Richter, "... Progress in physics almost always is made by simplification. ... To the Landscape Gardeners I would say calculate the probabilities of alternative universes, and if ours does not come out with a large probability while all others with content far from ours come out with negligible probability, you have no useful contribution to make to physics. ..."
Is "Naturalness" Unnatural? Presentation at SUSY '06, Prof. Burton Richter, Stanford University, 14 June 2006I maintain 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. Why do I maintain this hypothesis? String theory seems to be the mathematics of quantum gravity, while Milgrom, McGaugh, Kroupa, Pawlowski, and others have empirical evidence that gravity is Milgromian, whatever that might turn to be in terms of string theory. If string theory is merely a mathematical fantasy it has certainly been a productive fantasy for mathematics. The mathematical unification of quantum field theory and general relativity theory might, by logical necessity, be some form of string theory or M-theory.
Akinbo Ojo wrote on Feb. 9, 2015 @ 09:30 GMT
Dear David,
I just read your essay and the refreshing ideas proposed. Your essay should score highly even though to your question: Does dark matter exist? My answer is Yes, it does and not only that it exists right there inside your office and laboratory. If you are inclined to discuss the proof, we can take this further.
Best regards,
Akinbo
Please note: I share your skepticism about string theory.
report post as inappropriate
Author David Brown replied on Feb. 10, 2015 @ 12:34 GMT
Dear Akinbo,
In your essay “Does the division of extension mean the same in mathematics as it does in physics?” (page 5), there is the statement: “It appears that without the addition of some further ingredient into our physics, there are subtle nuances to what we call discrete and how it can be fundamentally expressed." I guess that, more specifically, one or more new physical hypotheses need to be introduced into string theory in order to explain dark matter and the space roar. My quantum theory of gravity has several basic assumptions: Dark matter is virtual mass-energy that has positive gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy. Dark energy is virtual mass-energy that has negative gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy. Nature is finite and digital, more-or-less as described in Wolfram’s “A New Kind of Science”, Chapter 9. The Koide formula, Lestone’s heuristic, and ‘t Hooft’s superstring determinism are necessary for understanding the foundations of physics. The Fernández-Rañada-Milgrom Effect, the Space Roar Profile Prediction, and the 64 Particles Hypothesis are empirically valid. According to the Gravity Probe B science team, my quantum theory of gravity has already been refuted. (I dispute the Gravity Probe B science team’s interpretation of their own experiment.) In any case, I affirm 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. Why do I affirm this? The mathematic evidence supports string theory, and the empirical evidence supports Milgrom’s acceleration law (according to the work of Milgrom, McGaugh, Kroupa, and Pawlowski).
— D. Brown
Member Tim Maudlin wrote on Feb. 11, 2015 @ 18:36 GMT
Dear David Brown,
I am so somewhat surprised that you link the question of dark matter with string theory so strongly. MOND was proposed as a way to account for the flat rotation curves of stars in galaxies, and is not committed to any particular account of the nature or origin of the dark matter. And cosmological observations of gravitational lensing effects have become much more exact and sophisticated since 1983. The Bullet Cluster has been cited as fairly direct evidence for dark matter. Do you have results that show how to account for these observations without dark matter, and just with a modification of the gravitational dynamics?
Regards,
Tim Maudlin
report post as inappropriate
Member Tim Maudlin replied on Feb. 11, 2015 @ 18:38 GMT
Sorry: I meant that the dark matter explanation of the rotation, as opposed to MOND, is not committed to any particular account of the dark matter, and in particular not to string theory.
report post as inappropriate
Author David Brown replied on Feb. 12, 2015 @ 00:00 GMT
Dear Tim Maudlin,
In your essay “How Mathematics Meets the World” there is the statement, “The puzzle is why the language of mathematics should be such an effective tool for describing the physical world.” My guess is that the solution to the puzzle is: Nature is finite and digital with string vibrations confined to 3 copies of the Leech lattice. Why is string theory likely to be ‘the only game in town’? Google “mystery magic matrix witten”. What is the empirical evidence for MOND? Google “kroupa pawlowski milgrom new paradigm”. Does the Bullet Cluster show that dark matter particles exist? See:
Milgrom's perspective on the Bullet Cluster, The MOND PagesWhat is the empirical evidence for the Fernández-Rañada-Milgrom effect? See:
Does the Rañada-Milgrom Effect Explain the Flyby Anomaly?My thinking is that the empirical evidence favors MOND, the mathematical evidence favors string theory (or M-theory), and the Fernández-Rañada-Milgrom effect is likely to be the string theoretical interpretation of MOND. I claim that an easy scaling argument demonstrates that the alleged effect is approximately equivalent to MOND. If in the standard form of Einstein's field equations the -1/2 is replaced by -1/2 + dark-matter-compensation-constant, gravitational lensing works approximately as well merely because the dark-matter-compensation-constant is very small in comparison to 1/2.
Sujatha Jagannathan wrote on Feb. 16, 2015 @ 08:23 GMT
You've taken a controversial subject of choice.
Thumbs Up!
Sincerely,
Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan
report post as inappropriate
Author David Brown replied on Feb. 21, 2015 @ 10:31 GMT
Dear Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan:
In your essay “Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics”, you state: “The puranic view asserts that the universe is created, destroyed, and re-created in an eternally repetitive series of cycles.” My theory assumes that the preceding idea is basically correct but my theory is based upon Wolfram’s atheistic, materialistic theory as expounded in “A New Kind of Science” (see NKS Forum, Applied NKS). However, according to the Space Probe B science team, my theory has already been ruled out. (If the 4 ultra-precise gyroscopes malfunctioned in the manner suggested by the Space Probe B science team, then I agree that my theory is wrong.) In any case, I think that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology (on the basis of empirical evidence accumulated by Milgrom, McGaugh, Kroupa, Pawlowski, and others). What MOND really means is unclear even to Milgrom.
— D. Brown
basudeba mishra wrote on Feb. 18, 2015 @ 09:34 GMT
Dear Sir,
We have discussed relativity critically in our essay. Since GR is also an inverse square theory, if MOND is correct, GR would also need modification. But for this modified versions to work, some sort of unseen or “dark” presence is a must, which looks a lot like dark matter. It won’t be described by particles in the way that dark matter is described - it may be described in...
view entire post
Dear Sir,
We have discussed relativity critically in our essay. Since GR is also an inverse square theory, if MOND is correct, GR would also need modification. But for this modified versions to work, some sort of unseen or “dark” presence is a must, which looks a lot like dark matter. It won’t be described by particles in the way that dark matter is described - it may be described in a more wavelike form or a more field-like form. In other words, MOND can do away with dark matter but cannot describe the universe simply as the product of a tweaked Einsteinian gravity acting on the mass we can see. It modifies gravity, but through the backdoor it introduces extra fields, which mean that the distinction between dark matter and modified gravity isn’t very clear. In a paper “No Evidence for a Dark Matter Disk within 4 kpc From the Galactic Plane” (http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.1289) the authors note that their findings directly contradict the predictions of MOND.
The energy “uncertainty” introduced in quantum theory combines with the mass-energy equivalence of special relativity to allow the creation of particle/anti-particle pairs by quantum fluctuations when the theories are merged. As a result there is no self-consistent theory which generalizes the simple, one-particle Schrödinger equation into a relativistic quantum wave equation. QED began not with a single relativistic particle, but with a relativistic classical field theory, such as Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism. This classical field theory was then “quantized” in the usual way and the resulting quantum field theory is claimed to be a combination of quantum mechanics and relativity. However, this theory is inherently a many-body theory with the quanta of the normal modes of the classical field having all the properties of physical particles. The resulting many-particle theory can be relatively easily handled if the particles are heavy on the energy scale of interest or if the underlying field theory is essentially linear. Such is the case for atomic physics where the electron-volt energy scale for atomic binding is about a million times smaller than the energy required to create an electron positron pair and where the Maxwell theory of the photon field is essentially linear.
However, the situation is completely reversed for the theory of the quarks and gluons. While the natural energy scale of these particles, the proton, meson, etc. is on the order of hundreds of millions of electron volts, the quark masses are about one hundred times smaller. Likewise, the gluons are said to be quanta of a Yang-Mills field which obeys highly non-linear field equations. As a result, strong interaction physics has no known analytical approach and numerical methods are said to be the only possibility for making predictions from first principles and developing a fundamental understanding of the theory. In QCD, the non-linearities in the theory have dramatic physical effects. One coherent, non-linear effect of the gluons is to “confine” both the quarks and gluons so that none of these particles can be found directly as excitations of the vacuum. Likewise, a continuous “chiral symmetry”, normally exhibited by a theory of light quarks, is broken by the condensation of chirally oriented quark/anti-quark pairs in the vacuum. The resulting physics of QCD is thus entirely different from what one would expect from the underlying theory, with the interaction effects having a dominant influence.
There is an urgent need to rewrite physics.
Regards,
basudeba
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author David Brown replied on Feb. 21, 2015 @ 12:25 GMT
Dear Basudeba Mishra,
In your essay “Reasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics”, you state “The validity of a physical statement is judged by its correspondence to reality.” Judging whether a physical theory corresponds to empirical reality depends upon the fairness of the empirical tests. I claim that the string theorists fail to realize that the empirical game is rigged against MOND...
view entire post
Dear Basudeba Mishra,
In your essay “Reasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics”, you state “The validity of a physical statement is judged by its correspondence to reality.” Judging whether a physical theory corresponds to empirical reality depends upon the fairness of the empirical tests. I claim that the string theorists fail to realize that the empirical game is rigged against MOND (by vested interests in dark matter particles). According to Milgrom, “The MOND Paradigm”, 2008, page 7 (http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.3133) “Disc galaxies are predicted to exhibit a disc mass discrepancy, as well as the spheroidal one that is found for any mass. In other words, when MOND is interpreted as DM we should deduce a disc component of DM as well as a spheroidal one …” The publication “No evidence for a dark matter disk within 4 kpc of the galactic plane” by C. Moni Bidin, G. Carraro, A. Méndez, and W. F. van AltenaI puts forward a model based upon 6 assumptions (pages 5 & 6): “I Steady state. The thick disk is in equilibrium with the Galactic potential, as expected for anold stellar population. Therefore, all temporal derivatives are set to zero. II Locally flat rotation curve. The rotation curve is assumed flat at the solar Galactocentricdistance. III No net radial or vertical stellar flux. The mean radial and vertical velocity components are zero, while the rotational component shows a non-null lag … IV Exponential radial dispersion profiles. … V Vertical constancy of scale lengths. …” The assumption of a locally flat rotation curve needs to be explained by DM, MOND, or some other (as yet) unverified theory because Newton-Einstein gravitational theory does not predict a locally flat rotation curve. To interpret MOND as dark matter particles that obey the equivalence principle either does not work or requires some drastic new hypothesis, so that “a disc component of DM” does not really mean in MOND what “a disc component of DM” means in cold dark matter theory. There is a pressing need for a relativistically precise version of MOND (WHICH MATCHES THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE). I conjecture that anyone who wants to fully understand MOND needs to explain the space roar and the photon underproduction crisis.
— D. Brown
view post as summary
Theodore St. John wrote on Feb. 24, 2015 @ 11:36 GMT
David Brown,
Nice work on your essay. Short and sweet but you obviously put a lot of thought into it. Most of these essays are very thought provoking but some are hard to read. I went a different route and wrote what I consider a more entertaining twist - sort of a blend of Knights of the Round Table and Lord of the Rings (See Doctors of the Ring - The Power of Merlin the Mathematician to Transform Chaos into Consciousness). It is based on a model that I am trying to get published, which I posted at http://vixra.org/abs/1402.0045 called the space-time-motion model. I invite you to read it and let me know what you think (email to stjohntheodore@gmail.com). Of course, I also invite you to read and rate my essay if you get the chance.
Respectfully,
Ted St. John
report post as inappropriate
Author David Brown replied on Feb. 24, 2015 @ 12:46 GMT
Ted St. John,
In your essay “Doctors of the Ring – the Power of Merlin the Mathematician to Transform Chaos into Consciousness”, you state: “... some admit that they don’t really understand what time actually is. ... The problem with trying to answer the question why is there only one dimension of time is: How can we be so certain that there is only one dimension of time if we don’t even know what it is? True, it only takes one number to describe time, but not because it is a one-dimensional entity; it’s because everyone agreed upon a single time standard in order to describe motion.” Fernández-Rañada and Tiemblo-Ramos suggested that atomic time might be different from astronomical time — I say that atomic time is guaranteed to be different from astronomical time because the work of Milgrom, McGaugh, Kroupa, and Pawlowski shows that some revision is needed in the current paradigm of cosmology. The physicists have agreed upon a single time standard based upon empirical findings, quantum field theory, and general theory relativity — their time standard well works amazingly well for the most part. However, Milgrom’s MOND, the space roar, and the photon underproduction crisis demonstrate that something is wrong somewhere in physicists’ current understanding of the foundations of physics. — D.B.
Mary Ann Slaby wrote on Mar. 13, 2015 @ 03:52 GMT
I liked the approach, however a cohesive relationship was not put forth.
report post as inappropriate
Author David Brown replied on Mar. 13, 2015 @ 12:10 GMT
Dear Mary Ann Slaby,
In your essay "What is the Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics?", you wrote: "The mysterious connection between physics and mathematics resides in the calculus developed by Newton and Leibniz." Riemannian geometry generalizes calculus, and presumably the non-commutative geometry of string theory is the generalization of Riemannian geometry that works...
view entire post
Dear Mary Ann Slaby,
In your essay "What is the Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics?", you wrote: "The mysterious connection between physics and mathematics resides in the calculus developed by Newton and Leibniz." Riemannian geometry generalizes calculus, and presumably the non-commutative geometry of string theory is the generalization of Riemannian geometry that works for quantum gravitational theory. I have a scheme for unifying MOND with string theory, but according to the Gravity Probe B science team my plan has already been empirically refuted. However, my guess is that the 4 ultra-precise gyroscopes worked correctly and confirmed the Fernández-Rañada-Milgrom effect. My basic idea is as follows: (1) Assume string vibrations are confined to 3 copies of the Leech lattice. (2) Assume that nature is finite and digital; the maximum physical wavelength is the Planck length times the Fredkin-Wolfram constant. For some ideas underlying (2) google "use of mathematics by richard hamming" and "nks chapter 9". In the Standard Model of particle physics there are 36 quarks with 18 matter/antimatter pairs and with 3 quark colors so that one might say there are 6 basic quarks. My guess is that the 6 basic quarks each have 4 dimensions of uncertainty so that there are 24 dimension of quantum uncertainty, 1 dimension of matter time, and 1 dimension of antimatter time, giving 26 dimensions for bosonic string theory. String vibrations might have 3 energy-density levels (low, medium, and high) so that string vibrations occur in 3 copies of the Leech lattice. The 3 copies of the Leech lattice allow 64 particle-path dimensions, with 3 dimensions of linear momentum, 3 dimensions of angular momentum, 1 dimension of matter time, and 1 dimension of antimatter time. Wolfram's automaton uses Fredkin-Wolfram information below the Planck scale to create approximations of energy, spacetime, and string theory. All measurement occurs on the boundary of the multiverse, which is 72-dimensional. The boundary of the multiverse is divided up into pairs of matter/antimatter universes, each having 71 dimensions. The explanation for dark matter and dark energy is that gravitons have a nonzero probability of escaping from a measurable universe into the interior of the multiverse. When a graviton escapes from the universe, dark matter string vibrations have to somehow compensate for the dark energy string vibrations. When the average temperature of the universe becomes sufficiently cold, the entire universe undergoes an instantaneous collapse. All the universes in the multiverse expand and collapse in a process that takes about 81.6 ± 1.7 billion years from initial big bang to collapse. According to Wolfram, there are 4 or 5 simple rules for Wolfram's automaton that can generate adequate approximations to quantum field theory and general relativity theory. If my scheme is to work, then the Koide formula and Lestone's heuristic string theory probably need to be valid physics.
view post as summary
Jose P. Koshy wrote on Mar. 19, 2015 @ 14:32 GMT
Dear David Brown,
I claim I am doing 'independent' research in theoretical physics. My few papers are available at vixra. When I learned from your reply to Philip Gibbs that you love 'crackpot' ideas, I thought it will be good to go through your essay. You have put forth some relevant questions.
I consider Dark matter a myth. What I propose is finite gravity with a speed dependent G. The present G is actually the G of Earth for its present speed.; it can be theoretically deduced from 'G' of electrons. The universe as a whole has a certain G which increases with expansion; the present G of the universe is 1.4194x10
-3. Using this G, the present Earth- Moon distance can be accurately predicted. What do you think? A crackpot idea! Visit my site
finitenesstheory.com for more details.
Kindly go through my essay
A physicalist interpretation of the relation between Physics and Mathematics.
report post as inappropriate
Author David Brown wrote on Mar. 19, 2015 @ 15:33 GMT
Dear Jose P. Koshy,
In your essay you wrote, "The Standard Model of particles is a set of interpretations based on QM. Similarly, the ΛCDM model of the universe is a set of interpretations based on GR. These models are still incomplete, and require further refining." According to Kroupa, the ΛCDM concordance cosmological model has been ruled out. A theory of "finite gravity with speed dependent G" contradicts what I call the Fernández-Rañada-Milgrom effect, i.e., the -1/2 in the standard form of Einstein's field equations should be replaced by -1/2 + dark-matter-compensation-compensation, where this constant is approximately sqrt((60±10)/4) * 10^-5 . Note that Milgrom's acceleration law does not suggest "speed dependent G" but some modification of Newtonian gravitation which is acceleration dependent. On the empirical evidence, I could be wrong about everything except the Milgrom Denial Hypothesis. No matter what the future holds, I predict that a few ideas now deemed 'crackpot' will triumph — however, these ideas will be very few in number and it is very unclear what the ideas will be.
Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 30, 2015 @ 15:16 GMT
Dear Mr. Brown,
I thought that your engrossing essay was exceptionally well written and I do hope that it fares well in the competition.
I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.
All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.
Joe Fisher
report post as inappropriate
Author David Brown replied on Mar. 30, 2015 @ 20:01 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher,
In your essay "WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL", you wrote, "... it must be re-emphasized here that all appearances are deceptive. The real Universe is not apparent and this is why it is not mathematical." If mathematics is that part of human thinking that is precise, then I personally believe that mathematical thinking is a particular type of electromagnetic field and therefore is at least a component of the real universe. On page 2 of the "Meaning of Relativity", 5th edition, Einstein wrote, "The only justification for our concepts and system of concepts is that they serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they have no legitimacy." The gravitational theories of Newton and Einstein are correct over broad ranges of experimental tests — beyond empirical testing, the true nature of reality is perhaps fundamentally a question of subjective opinion or philosophy.
Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Apr. 5, 2015 @ 15:42 GMT
Dear David,
As there is inconsistency between QM and cosmology, MOND is imperative; in that Gauge anomaly is causal for this inconsistency that invalidates Gauge theory. While this Gauge anomaly is a Vector gauge anomaly then that Gravitational anomaly invalidates General relativity. This is causal for the Gravity anomaly of Planets that is more pronounced with the observations of Galaxy clusters and their Superclusters.
Thus, further developments on MOND emerges with the theory of Tensor–vector–scalar gravity and its extension, Bi-scalar tensor vector gravity theory; while MOG is developed on Scalar–tensor–vector gravity theory.
All these incompleteness indicates that, redefining the Causality of gravitation is much imperative with string theory. Thus we may recommend for the
modifications in string theory, in that a string-segment itself is to be considered as an eigen-rotational matter with energy, that is an alternative to the fermionic field.
Thus, Gravitation between micro objects is a tensor derivative of a string-matter or collective tensor derivatives of few string-matters between invariable scalar structures of micro objects; whereas the Gravitation between macro objects is the resultant collective tensor derivatives of the string-matter bundles exists between that invariable scalar structures of macro objects, in time.
With best wishes, Jayakar
report post as inappropriate
Author David Brown replied on Apr. 5, 2015 @ 17:12 GMT
Dear Jakayar Johnson Joseph,
In your essay "Before the Primordial Geometric origin: The Mysterious Connection between Physics and Mathematics" you wrote, "Though it may be obvious that our Universe is Mathematical, because of Initial singularity, the only possibility to explore the initial conditions of the Universe is with Gödel's incompleteness theorems that have inherent limitations." It might be possible to detect gravitational waves generated in the very early stages of the Big Bang. In my personal opinion, Gödel's first and second incompleteness theorems suggest that the mathematical concept of infinity is somewhat unsatisfactory — to know what we really mean by "infinity" we might have to add infinitely many new axioms to Peano Arithmetic. One of my ideas is to replace the -1/2 in the standard form of Einstein's field equations by -1/2 + dark-matter-compensation-constant, where this constant is approximately sqrt((60±10)/4) * 10^-5 — however, if the Gravity Probe B science team is correct, this idea has already been ruled out. If some "eigen-rotational string matter continuum paradigm" accurately describes empirical reality, there needs to be some MOND-compatible prediction, perhaps along the lines of TeVeS or some similar theory.
Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Apr. 13, 2015 @ 14:14 GMT
David,
You say that string theorists fail to recognize that Milgrom is the "Kepler of contemporary cosmology," and yet I interpret Witten's reply to you, as favorable to that idea. He gives credit to the observational cosmologists, and credit to the mathematical cosmologists.
Just as Kepler's laws cannot be derived from first principles -- they are themselves first principles -- frameworks that explain frameworks, in a metamathematical and metaphysical way, are inductive hypotheses, and prior to the method of deduction from theory that characterizes rational science.
Like Witten (and Newton), I like to begin with a mathematically complete idea and make my conclusions from that structure, by theorem-proving. That doesn't obviate any hypotheses from observation that might crop up from serious researchers -- yet why should one trust any inductive conclusion? As that sage Yogi Berra put it, "If you don't know where you're going, you might end up somewhere else."
I got interested in Milgrom's research a few years ago after reading John Moffat's *Re-inventing Gravity.* I liked the book and the ideas in it -- in the end, though, I come back to my "center" in the fundamentals of field theory, and in agreement with Witten that "general relativity cosmology forces itself on us."
My current essay is part of my attempt to reconcile field theory with cosmological initial conditions, which brings quantum field theory (and therefore string theory) back to center stage.
Nice job of raising important questions -- my highest mark to you.
Best,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Author David Brown wrote on Apr. 13, 2015 @ 17:09 GMT
Dear Thomas Howard Ray,
In your essay “Science of the Possible, or the Probable?” (page 4), you wrote, “What quantum theorists know and seldom talk about, is that Bell’s Inequality— the formal mathematical statement of Bell’s theorem— is only locally real. The issue of nonlocality arises in the proof of the theorem, and that proof is only by way of double negation.” In my...
view entire post
Dear Thomas Howard Ray,
In your essay “Science of the Possible, or the Probable?” (page 4), you wrote, “What quantum theorists know and seldom talk about, is that Bell’s Inequality— the formal mathematical statement of Bell’s theorem— is only locally real. The issue of nonlocality arises in the proof of the theorem, and that proof is only by way of double negation.” In my opinion there is a problem about assigning mathematically and physically precise meanings to “locally real” and “nonlocality”. Quantum field theory can provide infinitely many mathematical frameworks for particles that are unlikely to exist in terms of empirical reality. String theory (or M-theory) might be an order of magnitude worse than quantum field theory in terms of ambiguity. Wolfram has conjectured that there exist 4 or 5 simple rules that generate satisfactory approximations to quantum field theory and general relativity theory. I have attempted to make testable hypothesis based on Wolfram’s conjecture. If the Gravity Probe B science team is correct, then my attempt has failed. In any case, I think that the string theorists need to explain the space roar, the photon underproduction crisis, and the empirical verifications of MOND found by Milgrom, McGaugh, Kroupa, and Pawlowski. One of my basic ideas concerning science is: Experimental physics trumps theoretical physics trumps mathematics trumps philosophy. To my way of thinking, philosophy is imprisoned by words, and mathematics is imprisoned by logically precise imaginings freed from empirical restraints. If we want to break out of our prisons of ignorance and false belief, then we need to do controlled empirical experiments. What is really meant by the word “infinity”? Gödel’s first and second incompleteness theorems might suggest that the concept of a complete infinity suffers from inherent problems of axiomatization. If the foundations of physics have a satisfactory axiomatization, then such an axiomatization might imply that nature is finite and digital.
view post as summary
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 14, 2015 @ 02:38 GMT
David,
I find the claim -- "axiomatization of physics (Hilbert's 6th problem) implies that nature is fundamentally both finite and digital" -- to be self-contradictory.
Finite sets are continuous in principle, physically and mathematically. One can derive parts from the whole; the converse is not true, because the sum of the continuous whole is greater than that of its discrete parts. Take the simple arithmetic theorem -- that a point may simultaneously map to any set of points, provided that it is far enough away. That point at infinity has to exist, physically (and locally, i.e., in every measured time interval), or else Minkowski space-time and special relativity are falsified.
The basic logical completeness of a generalized field theory (even including number fields) persuades me that nature is recursive. In my essay discussion forum -- in a recent attachment -- I demonstrated a continuous digital recursive function corresponding to the simplest prime number sequence.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Author David Brown replied on Apr. 14, 2015 @ 12:48 GMT
Tom,
Einstein and Leonardo da Vinci apparently believed that nature is infinite. According to Leonard da Vinci, "La natura è piena d'infinite ragioni, che non furon mai in isperienzia." (Nature is full of infinite reasons, which people have never realized.)
"Finite Nature is the hypothesis that ultimately every quantity of physics, including space and time, will turn out to be discrete and digital; that the amount of information in any small volume of space-time will be finite and equal to one of a small number of possibilities." — Edward Fredkin, "A New Cosmogony"
Can quantum information be explained in terms of Fredkin-Wolfram information below the Planck scale? Perhaps not. However, even if nature is infinite, the amount of actual data accumulated by scientists will probably always be finite. Google "witten milgrom" for more information on how the Copenhagen theory of measurement might be replaced by a Fredkin-Wolfram theory of measurement.
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 14, 2015 @ 14:57 GMT
"Einstein and Leonardo da Vinci apparently believed that nature is infinite."
Not Einstein. General relativity describes a universe "finite and unbounded."
report post as inappropriate
Author David Brown replied on Apr. 14, 2015 @ 15:23 GMT
Tom,
Assume the universe has an approximately constant curvature on average. General relativity describes a universe homeomorphic to the 3-sphere if and only the curvature is positive. In the Friedmann model, the curvature is either zero or negative. However, you seem to be correct that Einstein believed the universe is finite and unbounded. I copied the following from the Skeptics Stack...
view entire post
Tom,
Assume the universe has an approximately constant curvature on average. General relativity describes a universe homeomorphic to the 3-sphere if and only the curvature is positive. In the Friedmann model, the curvature is either zero or negative. However, you seem to be correct that Einstein believed the universe is finite and unbounded. I copied the following from the Skeptics Stack Exchange:
TAKE THE 2-MINUTE TOUR × Skeptics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for scientific skepticism. It's 100% free, no registration required.
Did Einstein say “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe.”
... DOTS ADDED
The following quotation is commonly attributed to Albert Einstein:
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
However, I've been unable to find a reliable source confirming the quote. Can anyone confirm or reject the genuiness of this citation?
quotes albert-einstein
shareimprove this question
edited Oct 20 '13 at 23:59
user5582
asked Oct 20 '13 at 22:17
Dominik
203125
2
This item at Quote Investigator may be a useful source. – Compro01 Oct 20 '13 at 22:29
@Compro01: I think there is enough there to make that an answer. – Oddthinking♦ Oct 20 '13 at 23:44
As an aside, I'm not sure Einstein believed in an infinite universe as such. Prior to Hubble's results (circa 1929), he seems to have leaned towards a static universe, which would lead then to Olbers' paradox (which was well known) if it was infinite and eternal at the same time. Later on, he seems to have been convinced by the evidence that it is expanding. I'm not sure how an infinite universe can expand, but perhaps that's just me :) A good summary of some of these topics can be found here. – Daniel B Oct 22 '13 at 5:56
Yeah Daniel I agree Einstein held to finite universe till the day he died. It was the common view among Physicist at the time. – Neil Meyer Oct 28 '13 at 10:16
... DOTS ADDED
Unable to determine veracity of quote. It pretty much depends on whether or not you believe a single man's claim about a personal conversation with Einstein.
According to Quote Investigator, the origin of the quotation being attributed to Einstein is the book Gestalt Therapy Verbatim by Frederick S. Perls.
As Albert Einstein once said to me: “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity.” But what is much more widespread than the actual stupidity is the playing stupid, turning off your ear, not listening, not seeing.
Further context on the quote is given in another Perls book, In and Out the Garbage Pail.
I spent one afternoon with Albert Einstein: unpretentiousness, warmth, some false political predictions. I soon lost my self-consciousness, a rare treat for me at that time. I still love to quote a statement of his: “Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not yet completely sure about the universe.”
He also used the quote in a previous book Ego, Hunger, and Aggression: a Revision of Freud’s Theory and Method, though did not cite it to Einstein, but rather to "a great astronomer"
Wikiquote lists the quote as "disputed" and also notes similar quotations from various people dating back to 1880.
view post as summary
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 14, 2015 @ 15:25 GMT
David,
I will add this, though. As Ed Fredkin says, " ... the amount of information in any small volume of space-time will be finite and equal to one of a small number of possibilities."
I agree. My research tells me that the mathematics of Einstein's finite and unbounded model -- meaning finite in time, bounded at the singularity of creation, and unbounded in space -- does not change when converted to a model finite in space and unbounded in time.
So "Can quantum information be explained in terms of Fredkin-Wolfram information below the Planck scale?"
Why not? The Planck limit is empirical. Quantum information is self-limiting at multiple scales and not necessarily restricted by the Planck limit.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.