"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

"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 a property of our world either remains undecided or it has been decided as discrete (atoms, electricity, light, angular momentum, etc.). It is hard to imagine the proof that some property will never admit to a finite description, no matter how fine grained. On the other hand, what is interesting is that so many concepts once thought of as continuous are now accepted as discrete. Finite Nature assumes that that historical process will continue to a logical conclusion where, at the bottom, everything will turn out to be atomic or discrete, including space and time." — Edward Fredkin

http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/im/ftp/poc/fredkin/Fin
ite-Nature

Stephen Wolfram conjectured that there exists 4 or 5 simple rules that yield empirically valid approximations to quantum field theory and general relativity theory.

Now (19th of February) I would like to elaborate on my conjectures on how the monster group and the 6 pariah groups might enable the empirical confirmation of Wolfram’s conjecture.

What is a register in a digital computer?

According to Wikipedia, “In computer architecture, a processor register is a quickly accessible location available to a computer's central processing unit (CPU). Registers usually consist of a small amount of fast storage, although some registers have specific hardware functions, and may be read-only or write-only. Registers are typically addressed by mechanisms other than main memory, but may in some cases be memory mapped.”

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

For Wolfram’s automaton, imagine a geometric-register in which a huge, but finite, number of points might somehow approximate a higher-dimensional geometric structure. For each prime number p that divides the order of the monster group or one of the orders of the 6 pariah groups, there might exist a p-Sylow subgroup geometric-register that contains a higher-dimensional geometric structure that has Euclidean dimension equal to the order of that particular p-Sylow subgroup. There might be a network of Fredkin-Wolfram information in which Fredkin-time, Fredkin-distance, and Fredkin-digit-transition are precursors of time, distance, and energy in quantum field theory and in general relativity theory.

A huge number of updates by Wolfram’s updating parameter might create one Planck time interval with an approximate array of quantum information in a huge, but finite number, of alternate universes. All of the alternate universes would occur on the boundary of the multiverse. Directly measured particles would occur in a particular alternate universe. Indirectly measured particles would be virtual particles that occur in the interior of the multiverse. During one Planck time interval, Wolfram’s automaton might read the Fredkin-Wolfram information on the boundary of the multiverse, store information in the Fredkin-Wolfram net and in the geometric-registers associated with the monster group and the 6 pariah groups, and, after a huge number of stages of computing and storing, then output the approximations of quantum information to all of the alternate universes. Thus, Wolfram’s automaton would read, store, compute, update, and output in an endless cycle of computing below the Planck scale. Why should anyone believe such a scenario?

http://vixra.org/abs/1407.0088 "MOND and the Photon Underproduction Crisis"

http://vixra.org/abs/1407.0113 "Lambda-VDM Model: a Testable Modification of Lambda-CDM"

view post as summary

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

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 possibility that fundamental particles (like leptons) are quantum micro black holes. Black holes are now believed to have a temperature, entropy, and thus many internal degrees of freedom. Individual black holes are objects amenable to statistical mechanics.

My heretical statement

If black holes (once thought to be point objects) are amenable to statistical mechanics, then why not fundamental particles like leptons? (1988)

Introduction to my idea continued

I consider the possibility of a very strange “unknown” imaginary class of particles, with several unique (bizarre) properties including

(1) My particles have a very high temperature(s).

(2) Despite having a very high temperature, my imaginary particles can not change their rest mass upon the emission of electromagnetic energy. Using known physics my imaginary particles (if isolated) can not emit any “real” photons”.

(3) However, I consider the possibility that my imaginary particles can emit and absorb unphysical L=0 “virtual” photons via the time-energy uncertainty principle.

(4) The emission and absorption is controlled by statistical arguments involving their classical temperature and possibility other effective temperatures.

,,,” http://permalink.lanl.gov/object/tr?what=info:lanl-repo/lare
port/LA-UR-16-22121 J. P. Lestone, “Possible path for the calculation of the fine structure constant”, Los Alamos Report LA-UR-16-22121, April 2016, Los Alamos National Laboratory

How might Lestone’s bizarre virtual particles with virtual non-zero cross sections be incorporated into a new theory of the foundations of physics that makes empirically valid predictions concerning Milgrom’s MOND, the space roar, and the photon underproduction crisis? Assume that string vibrations are confined to 3 copies of the Leech lattice — such drastic restriction might eliminate the string landscape and enable string theorists to make several new and empirically valid predictions. If nature is finite and digital, the most important mathematical structures involved might the monster group, the 6 pariah groups, the Leech lattice, and the Clebsch diagonal cubic surface. Below the Planck scale, there might be some kind of Fredkin-Wolfram physics in which Fredkin-Wolfram information and symmetries within Wolfram’s automaton might allow particle physics with virtual particles to be understood of Fredkin time, Fredkin distance, and Fredkin digit transition. The Fredkin-Wolfram physics would not allow direct measurement but might “explain” quantum micro black holes (with some Lestone-modification to general relativity theory) in terms of “non-measurable” Fredkin heat and Fredkin energy. All of the alternate universes would be cold in terms of Fredkin heat and would occur on the boundary of the multiverse. All of the virtual mass-energy would occur in the interior of the multiverse and would be hot in terms of Fredkin heat. The network Fredkin speed would be big-C, a non-measurable speed that would seem to be incredibly faster than c (the speed of light in a vacuum). Because of dense and incredibly fast networking with the interior of the multiverse, one might think of the multiverse as being flattened out with an incredibly “Fredkin hot” quantum foam in which string vibrations transfer Fredkin-Wolfram information. Massive bosons might consist of 1 vibrating string confined to a 1-sphere. Leptons might consist of 3 vibrating strings confined to a 2-sphere. Quarks might consist of 9 vibrating strings confined to a 3-sphere. Is the preceding merely “techno-babble” that does make sense in terms of physics? Is Milgrom the Kepler of contemporary cosmology? Is it necessary to make 2 modifications to Einstein's field equations to account for the space roar and Milgrom’s MOND? Does Lestone’s theory of virtual cross sections suggest a Lestone-modification to Einstein’s field equations?

view post as summary

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

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) * g(mu,nu) * R =

- 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 T(max) = +∞ then Einstein’s field equations are recovered. I conjecture that the preceding correction might provide a basis for understanding 2 things: (1) how photons can acquire incredibly large kinetic energy from relativistic jets and (2) Lestone’s theory of virtual cross sections.

https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0703151 “Physics based calculation of the fine structure constant” by John P. Lestone, 2009

http://permalink.lanl.gov/object/tr?what=info:lanl-repo/
lareport/LA-UR-16-27659 Los Alamos Report LA-UR-16-27659 “Semi-classical Electrodynamics: A Short Note” by John Paul Lestone, issued 2016-10-05

http://permalink.lanl.gov/object/tr?what=info:lanl
-repo/lareport/LA-UR-16-22121 J. P. Lestone, “Possible path for the calculation of the fine structure constant”, Los Alamos Report LA-UR-16-22121, April 2016, Los Alamos National Laboratory

http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S02
17732308027199?journalCode=mpla Lestone, J. P. "Black-Body Photon Clustering by Semiclassical Means." Modern Physics Letters A 23, no. 15 (2008): 1067-1077.

According to Wikipedia, “Several remarkable properties of j have to do with its q-expansion (Fourier series expansion), written as a Laurent series in terms of q = exp(2πiτ), which begins:

j(τ) = 1/q + 744 + 196884 * q + …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/j-invariant

Note that 6! = 1 * 2 * 3 * 4 * 5 * 6 = 720 and 744 - 720 = 24. Does 744 - 720 = 24 have some profound meaning in the foundations of physics?

Is spacetime 4-dimensional? Is spacetime 26-dimensional? Measurements of spacetime using clocks and surveying instruments demonstrate that spacetime is 4-dimensional. I say that, from one point of view, spacetime is 26-dimensional. 26 dimensions = 1 dimension of matter time + 1 dimension of antimatter time + 24 dimensions of (±, ±, ± )-space. What is (±, ±, ±)-space? For the measurement of space, employ 6 particle beams consisting of 3 electron beams and 3 positron beams. For each dimension of space, employ all 3-tuples of beams selected from the 6 beams. By definition, (±, ±, ±)-space consists of 3 dimensions of ordinary space, each of which is measured in 8 different ways by using all of the possible 3-tuples of the 6 beams. The 24 dimensions of (±, ±, ±)-space reduce to the 3 dimensions of ordinary space because quantum field theory is empirically valid — however, (±, ±, ±)-space might be useful for representational redundancy (because of the role that the Leech lattice plays in the foundations of physics.)

Note that the order of the monster group is

2^46 * 3^20 * 5^9 * 7^6 * 11^2 * 13^3 * 17 * 19 * 23 * 29 * 31 * 41 * 47 * 59 * 71 —

observe that 2^46 * 3^20 * 5^9 / 720^9 = 9216 = 2 * 72 * 64 — does the preceding numerology suggest that the number of permutations of 6 basic quarks with 3 quark colors (for both matter and antimatter) might involve matter-time, antimatter-time, a 72-ball, and 64 fundamental particles in free space? (Add the axion, the graviton, and the inflation to the 61 fundamental particles of the Standard Model.)

view post as summary

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

view entire post

I have conjectured the Milgrom Denial Hypothesis: The main problem with string theory is that string theorists fail to realize that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. I have 2 main guesses: (1) String theory with the infinite nature hypothesis implies supersymmetry and no MOND. (2) String theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies MOND and no supersymmetry. Can string theory explain dark matter, dark energy, inflation, the space roar, and the photon underproduction crisis? It seems to me that string theory provides a means of unifying mathematics, theoretical physics, and theoretical computer science.

Consider the following hierarchy:



infinitary mathematics (Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, Mochizuki’s IUT with alternate universes of quantum logics)

/

finitary mathematics (monster group) — string theory — theoretical physics (quantum field theory, general relativity theory)

/

quantum computing, computer science, nanotechnology, chemistry, condensed matter physics

/

computer software, AI, robotics, engineering — molecular psychology — theoretical biology, molecular biology, biotechnology

/

social sciences, humanities

My guess is that Lestone’s theory of virtual cross sections can be justified in terms of the string landscape and in terms of string theory with the finite nature hypothesis (but in substantially different ways).

J. P. Lestone has introduced a highly speculative approach to estimating the fine structure constant in terms of his theory of virtual cross sections. Lestone 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 possibility that fundamental particles (like leptons) are quantum micro black holes. Black holes are now believed to have a temperature, entropy, and thus many internal degrees of freedom. Individual black holes are objects amenable to statistical mechanics.

My heretical statement

If black holes (once thought to be point objects) are amenable to statistical mechanics, then why not fundamental particles like leptons? (1988)

Introduction to my idea continued

I consider the possibility of a very strange “unknown” imaginary class of particles, with several unique (bizarre) properties including

(1) My particles have a very high temperature(s).

(2) Despite having a very high temperature, my imaginary particles can not change their rest mass upon the emission of electromagnetic energy. Using known physics my imaginary particles (if isolated) can not emit any “real” photons”.

(3) However, I consider the possibility that my imaginary particles can emit and absorb unphysical L=0 “virtual” photons via the time-energy uncertainty principle.

(4) The emission and absorption is controlled by statistical arguments involving their classical temperature and possibly other effective temperatures.

…” http://permalink.lanl.gov/object/tr?what=info:lanl-repo/lare
port/LA-UR-16-22121 J. P. Lestone, “Possible path for the calculation of the fine structure constant”, Los Alamos Report LA-UR-16-22121, April 2016, Los Alamos National Laboratory

MY GUESS is that there might be a plausible way of justifying (1)–(4) in terms of string theory with the string landscape. Assume a string landscape in which all the alternate universes have Standard Model free parameters that are very close to each other. If there is (in the string landscape) an extremely hot interstitium which is 10-dimensional and super-hot with respect to all the cooler alternate universes, and ALSO most of the virtual energy close to each alternate universe is slightly super-hot but cool enough that it is ALMOST conventional in terms of 4-dimensional spacetime, then it seems to me that (1)–(4) might be justifiable.

Also, in string theory with the finite nature hypothesis, several of Ramanujan's formulas might be crucially important. In particular, I want to mention the Theorems on pages 10 & 12 and equation (11.4) on page 17 of B. C. Berndt's "An overview of Ramanujan's notebooks".

http://www.math.uiuc.edu/~berndt/articles/aachen.
pdf

view post as summary

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

view entire post

Criticisms from some physicists suggest that they misunderstand my analysis of the Koide formula. For me, the point is NOT that the Koide formula predicts some particular range of values for lepton masses — the WHOLE POINT is that square-root(mass) has some kind of profound meaning in terms of physics. Conventional wisdom says that there exists a Planck time and a Planck length. Does there exist a Wolfram time and a Wolfram length? In other words, it is true that the wavelengths of photons and gravitons can be arbitrary long or is it true that there exists a maximum wavelength in the physical universe? How do physicists know the answer to the previous question? If there is a maximum length in the physical universe, then should there be a modification of Einstein's field equations (even after quantum averaging)?

According to Einstein's field equations and string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis, our universe expands forever. What is the explanation for the space roar? Does the Koide formula suggest that there might be a modification 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) * g(mu,nu) * R * (1 - (R(min) / R)^2)^(1/2) = - κ * T(mu,nu) - Λ * g(mu,nu), if R(min) = 0 then Einstein’s field equations are recovered.

EINSTEIN’S “THE MEANING OF RELATIVITY”, 5TH EDITION, PAGES 83 AND 84

[edit note: for page 83, all except last paragraph of page 83 deleted]

If there is an analogue of Poisson’s equation in the general theory of relativity, then this equation must be a tensor equation for the tensor g(mu,nu) of the gravitational potential; the energy tensor of matter must appear on the right-hand side of this equation. On the left-hand side of the equation there must be a differential tensor in the g(mu,nu). It is completely determined by the following three conditions:

1. It may contain no differential coefficients of the g(mu,nu) higher than the second.

2. It must be linear in these second differential coefficients.

3. Its divergence must vanish identically.

The first two of these conditions are naturally taken from Poisson’s equation. Since it may be proved mathematically that all such differential tensors can be formed algebraically (i.e. without differentiation) from Riemann’s tensor, our tensor must have the form

R(mu,nu) + a g(mu,nu) R

in which R(mu,nu) and R are defined by (88) and (89) [edit note: see page 77]. Further, it may be proved that the third condition requires a to have the value – 1/2 . For the law of the gravitational field we therefore get the equation

(96) R(mu,nu) – (1/2) g(mu,nu) R = – κ * T(mu,nu) .

Equation (95) [edit note: see deleted part of page 83] is a consequence of this equation. κ denotes a constant, which is connected with the Newtonian gravitational constant.

CRITICISM OF EINSTEIN’S ASSUMPTION for R

How do physicists know that there is not some law of nature that forces R ≥ R(min), always and everywhere? The Koide formula suggests that square-root(mass-energy) might somehow be construed as area. If so, the entire universe might undergo an instantaneous (i.e. one Planck time interval) collapse. If the universe collapses when the average temperature of the universe gets too cold, then Einstein was wrong. Therefore, there might be some modification involving R that changes the underlying physics basis for eternal cosmological expansion. Can physicists cite empirical evidence that proves that the preceding speculation is wrong? Theorists might cite theoretical reasons why the proposed modification is wrong, but CAN THEY CITE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE WHICH CLEARLY DISCONFIRMS THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION?

view post as summary

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

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

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-h
ope-of-reformulating-String-Theory-without-supersymmetry

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

It seems to me that I have...

view entire post

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

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

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-h
ope-of-reformulating-String-Theory-without-supersymmetry

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

It seems to me that I have not done a good job of explaining my viewpoint to string theorists and to critics of string theory.

First of all, who do I think are the 2 best critics of string theory: Answer: Burton Richter & Sheldon Glashow. What is my thinking on the “String Wars”? Google “witten magic mystery and matrix”. Consider 5 questions:

1. Is string theory the “only game in town” for unifying quantum field theory and general relativity? I say yes. 2. Does string theory predict general relativity theory? I say yes. 3. Does string theory predict quantum field theory? I say yes. 4. Does string theory predict nonabelian gauge symmetry? I say yes. Does string theory predict supersymmetry? I say that string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis predicts supersymmetry but string theory with the finite nature hypothesis predicts no supersymmetry, i.e. no superpartners at all. What do I say is wrong with the thinking of string theorists? String theorists seem to think that nature is smooth, differential, geometric, and higher dimensional in terms of spatial dimensions. I suggest that their thinking is a kind of half-truth. I suggest that there are precisely 64 basic particles. In terms of the interior of the multiverse, these 64 different particles by means of their independent motions create 64 dimensions of virtual spacetime. Each matter particle has 3 dimensions of linear momentum, 3 dimensions of angular momentum, and 1 dimension of quantum spin in the matter-quantum-spin-dimension. Each antimatter particle has 3 dimensions of linear momentum, 3 dimensions of angular momentum, and 1 dimension of antimatter-quantum-spin-dimension. Altogether, the motions of the particles create a 72-ball of virtual particle motion. This 72-ball somehow allows the monster group and the 6 pariah groups to guide string vibrations on 3 copies of the Leech lattice. This set-up somehow creates a mathematical bridge between the Fredkin-Wolfram network and and an approximation to string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis. In order for string theory with the finite nature hypothesis to work it is necessary for string theory with the infinite nature to “almost work”. The most important insight is that string theory the infinite nature hypothesis implies supersymmetry and no MOND, while string theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies MOND and no supersymmetry. I say that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology and that the empirical successes of MOND imply that at least 1 of Newton’s 3 laws of motion are wrong. Consider (± 1st law, ± 2nd law, ± 3rd law), where + means true and – means false. Milgrom thinks that the basic problem is with the 2nd law, but I think that the basic problem is with the 3rd law. By introducing a nonzero dark-matter-compensation constant, the result is the mathematically simplest modification of Einstein’s field equations. An easy scaling argument then allows the approximate recovery of MOND in the Newtonian approximation. I suggest that Newton and Einstein wrongly assumed that gravitational energy is conserved. I suggest that some gravitons can escape from the boundary of the multiverse (where all direct measurement occurs) into the interior of the multiverse (which has immense “Fredkin heat”). By making 3 different modifications to Einstein’s field equations it might be possible to provide physical justifications for Milgrom’s MOND, the Koide formula, and Lestone’s heuristic string theory. These 3 modifications might provide a new starting point for quantum gravity. Am I completely wrong? Maybe so.

view post as summary

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

view entire post

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

https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.06145 “Why trust a theory? Some further remarks (part 1)” by J. Polchinski

Consider 4 hypotheses. Hypothesis 1. By using clever D-brane adjustments, string theorists can provide mathematical models of any plausible or implausible physics — even including miracles and cartoon physics. Hypothesis 2. The Copenhagen Interpretation is philosophically wrong but empirically irrefutable because it does not rule out the string landscape. 3. Bell’s theorem is philosophically wrong but empirically irrefutable because it does not rule out the string landscape. 4. String theory with the infinite nature hypothesis can explain Milgrom’s MOND but in a mathematically awkward way, such as by MOND-chameleon particles or something else. Is Milgrom the Kepler of contemporary cosmology? The empirical successes of MOND imply that at least 1 of Newton’s 3 laws of motion is wrong. Consider (± 1st law, ± 2nd law, ± 3 law), where + means true and – means false. My guess is that the 4 most plausible possibilities are: (1) a Verlinde-type in which gravity is emergent and all of the 3 laws fail at the origin of the emergence; (2) a Bekenstein-type theory in which the 2d law fails but the 3rd law is true; (3) a string landscape theory in which all of the 3 laws are true but MOND-compatible, dark matter particles exist; (4) dark-matter-compensation-constant modification of Einstein’s field equations. Am I correct on Milgrom’s MOND, the Koide formula, and Lestone’s theory of virtual cross sections?

Is there some way that Lestone’s theory of virtual cross sections might be justified in terms of the string landscape? In the string landscape, let us assume that there is a 10-dimensional ultra-hot interstitium among alternate universes and that, within the string landscape, alternate universes exchange virtual energy if and only if they have “almost exactly” the same virtual vacua. Furthermore let us assume that our own universe is very close to the multiverse average in terms of its free parameters in the Standard Model. Then it might be possible to hide Lestone’s imaginary particles with virtual cross sections in the multiverse interstitium of the string landscape. The ultra-hot interstitium might consist entirely of virtual energy in which there are “bubbles” consisting of 2-spheres with 3 vibrating strings confined to the surface of each 2-sphere. The alternate universes might have “point-paricle” leptons that exchange virtual photons with nearby “bubbles” in the interstitium. Approximate curling up of 9 spatial dimensions might allow Lestone’s speculative intuitions to have an approximate model in 4-dimensional spacetime. Could the preceding scenario work?

Lestone has introduced a highly speculative approach to estimating the fine structure constant in terms of theory. Lestone 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 possibility that fundamental particles (like leptons) are quantum micro black holes. Black holes are now believed to have a temperature, entropy, and thus many internal degrees of freedom. Individual black holes are objects amenable to statistical mechanics.

My heretical statement

If black holes (once thought to be point objects) are amenable to statistical mechanics, then why not fundamental particles like leptons? (1988)

Introduction to my idea continued

I consider the possibility of a very strange “unknown” imaginary class of particles, with several unique (bizarre) properties including

(1) My particles have a very high temperature(s).

(2) Despite having a very high temperature, my imaginary particles can not change their rest mass upon the emission of electromagnetic energy. Using known physics my imaginary particles (if isolated) can not emit any “real” photons”.

(3) However, I consider the possibility that my imaginary particles can emit and absorb unphysical L=0 “virtual” photons via the time-energy uncertainty principle.

(4) The emission and absorption is controlled by statistical arguments involving their classical temperature and possibly other effective temperatures.

…” http://permalink.lanl.gov/object/tr?what=info:lanl-repo/lare
port/LA-UR-16-22121 J. P. Lestone, “Possible path for the calculation of the fine structure constant”, Los Alamos Report LA-UR-16-22121, April 2016, Los Alamos National Laboratory

MY GUESS is that there might be a plausible way of justifying (1)–(4) in terms of string theory with the string landscape. Assume a string landscape in which all the alternate universes have Standard Model free parameters that are very close to each other. If there is (in the string landscape) an extremely hot interstitium which is 10-dimensional and super-hot with respect to all the cooler alternate universes, and ALSO most of the virtual energy close to each alternate universe is slightly super-hot but cool enough that it is ALMOST conventional in terms of 4-dimensional spacetime, then it seems to me that (1)–(4) might be justifiable.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.0333.pdf "String Theory" by David Tong, 2012

http://www-hep.physics.uiowa.edu/~vincent/courses/29276/
Vecchia.pdf “The Birth of String Theory” by P. di Vecchia, Lect. Notes Phys., 737, 59–118 (2008)

http://www.sns.ias.edu/witten

“… a proper theoretical framework for the extra term in the uncertainty relation has not yet emerged …” p. 29 in reference to equation (9) of “Reflections on the Fate of Spacetime” by Edward Witten

http://www.sns.ias.edu/ckfinder/userfiles/files/Reflec
tions(3).pdf

http://www.superstringtheory.com/people/witten.h
tml

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

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

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-h
ope-of-reformulating-String-Theory-without-supersymmetry

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

In string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis, the idea is to say that the equivalence principle is 100% true but the Heisenberg uncertainty principle needs to be modified to include both hbar and alpha-prime. In string theory with the finite nature hypothesis, the idea is to say that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is 100% true but the equivalence principle is completely false for both dark energy and dark matter, i.e., dark energy has negative gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy, while dark matter has positive gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy. According to Fredkin, nature contains neither infinities nor infinitesimals. If t is the time parameter and Fredkin is correct, then our universe does not expand forever because t cannot be arbitrarily large — thus a Koide-type modification to Einstein’s field equations is needed. If Fredkin is correct then energy-density cannot be arbitrarily large and there needs to be a corresponding modification to Einstein’s field equations in order to limit the energy-density.

view post as summary

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

view entire post

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

“I think few people appreciate that the main difficulty for DM is that the host of regularities pointed out by MOND, if taken as just a summary of how DM behaves and interacts with normal matter, suggests that these two matter components are coupled and correlated very strongly in many ways.” — M. Milgrom

“Dark-Matter Heretic”, interview of Mordehai Milgrom by Michael Szpir, Jan-Feb 2003, American Scientist

Can string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis and with supersymmetry explain MOND? I think that the answer is 'yes', but the explanation is mathematically awkward. Assume that MOND-chameleon particles exist. These hypothetical particles would have variable effective mass depending upon the nearby gravitational acceleration. Assume that some of the superpartners of ordinary particles can yield WIMPs that are also MOND-chameleon particles. How might such WIMP-MOND-chameleon particles mimic a violation of the conservation of gravitational energy? In the standard form of Einstein's field equations, replace the -1/2 by -1/2 + dark-matter-compensation-function, where this function depends upon unknown parameters. In the Newtonian approximation to Einstein's field equations, chop up gravitational acceleration into zones where the gravitational acceleration is approximately constant. If the dark-matter-compensation-function is approximately constant in the approximation range where MOND applies, then we get an approximation to MOND. Also, the false assumption that the WIMP-MOND-chameleon particles DO NOT have variable effective mass would lead to the false impression that the "dark-matter-compensation-function" is REAL. However, the "dark-matter-compensation-function would be an invalid assumption which IS APPARENTLY CORRECT under the false assumption made concerning the WIMP-MOND-chameleon particles (the false assumption being that these hypothetical particles DO NOT have variable effective mass). How might MOND-chameleon particles be explained? Some of the superpartners of ordinary particles might have a weird, unknown correlation with Einstein's curvature scalar R. Such a weird correlation might arise from a D-brane charge that shows its effects upon MOND-chameleon particles but not other particles. The weird correlation might arise from a Higgs-MOND-chamelon field — in other words, there might be two Higgs fields — one that has been discovered and an undiscovered Higgs-MOND-chameleon-field that interacts only with MOND-chameleon particles.

view post as summary

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

view entire post

What does dark energy imply for the foundations of physics? I want to make a few more points concerning string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis versus string theory with the finite nature hypothesis. I have conjectured that dark energy has negative gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy, while dark matter has positive gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy — and also that Einstein’s field equations need 3 modifications in connection with my conjectural epistemology. Let us assume that my “64 Particles Hypothesis” is wrong. In that case, the Koide formula might be essential for understanding the foundations of physics but for a different reason than I have conjectured. Square-root(mass) might have some interpretation in terms of area, but for reasons involving supersymmetry and virtual particles involved in the explanation of how dark energy works in terms of the details of quantum gravity.

www.quora.com/What-is-the-relation-between-dark-ener
gy-and-virtual-particle-production-Can-the-expansion-of-the-
universe-be-attributed-to-an-increase-in-the-number-of-virtu
al-particles

If the “64 Particles Hypothesis” is wrong, then I guess that the space roar might be explained in terms of the decay of unknown particles somehow related to supersymmetry.

Seiffert, M., Fixsen, D.J., Kogut, A., Levin, S.M., Limon, M., Lubin, P.M., Mirel, P., Singal, J., Villela, T., Wollack, E. and Wuensche, C.A., 2011. Interpretation of the ARCADE 2 absolute sky brightness measurement. The Astrophysical Journal, 734(1), p.6.

If the “64 Particles Hypothesis” is wrong, then I guess that Lestone’s theory of virtual cross sections might have a multiverse explanation with string theory and supersymmetry.

“What Are the Implications of Lestone’s Heuristic String Theory?”

Can string theory with supersymmetry be empirically refuted? I don’t think so — D-brane adjustments might provide explanations for any imaginable empirical findings. I doubt that MOND-chameleon particles can be empirically refuted — the MOND-chameleon particles might cluster around the McGaugh correlation according to bizarre concoctions by clever string theorists. However, in my basic theory, Witten’s 11-dimensional model would probably be essential for making the Wolfram automaton pay off. Why does 11^2 divide the order of the monster group?

view post as summary

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

view entire post

Consider 4 hypotheses: (1) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. (2) The Koide formula is essential for understanding the foundations of physics. (3) Lestone’s theory of virtual cross sections is essential for understanding the foundations of physics. (4) My “dark-matter-compensation-constant” idea is wrong. If my basic theory is wrong, then how would I guess? Given the empirical successes of MOND, consider Newton’s 3 laws of motion: (± 1st law, ± 2nd law, ± 3rd law), where + means true and – means false. Is string theory the only plausible way to unify quantum field theory and general relativity theory? Let us assume that string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis is correct, Einstein’s equivalence principle is 100% correct for dark matter, and the conventional wisdom is correct in endorsing (+ 1st law, + 2nd law, + 3rd law).

In calculating quark masses, the issue of pole mass versus running mass is important.

"Charm Production: Pole Mass or Running Mass?" by Richard D. Ball, 2016

The Higgs field enables the stability of quantum fields.

"How the Higgs Field Works (with math)", profmattstrassler.com

Dark matter particles might have their mass explained in some profoundly new way, such as by a MOND-chameleon-Higgs field. MOND-chameleon particles would, by definition, have variable effective masses depending upon the nearby gravitational acceleration, and the MOND-chameleon-Higgs field would, presumably, share this feature of the hypothetical MOND-chameleon particles. The MOND-chameleon-Higgs field might have some role in maintaining the structure of the multiverse. The Koide formula might have an explanation with square-root(mass) somehow interpreted as area, but with the explanation involving how dark energy interacts with the quantum vacuum. Lestone’s theory of virtual cross sections might have an explanation involving interchange of virtual mass-energy among alternate universes, but with conservation of gravitational energy in each alternate universe; Lestone’s virtual cross sections might be hidden in the multiverse interstitium. The MOND-chameleon-Higgs field might be somehow related to the multiverse interstitium and might serve as some kind of conduit for the interchange of virtual mass-energy among alternate universes.

view post as summary

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

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

(1) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology.

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

view entire post

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

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

(1) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology.

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

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

Koide formula, Wikipedia

(3) Lestone’s theory of virtual cross sections is essential for understanding the foundations of physics.

“Possible path for the calculation of the fine structure constant, Los Alamos Report LA-UR-16-22121” by J. P. Lestone, 2016

Is there a way of explaining the 3 preceding ideas in terms of the string landscape?

Assume that Einstein’s field equations are correct in terms of quantum averaging over the string landscape. Under the preceding assumption, Milgrom’s MOND might be an apparent effect. Assume that the apparent effect of MOND is entirely due to a quantum scalar field with an associated scalar boson with a variable effective mass depending on the nearby gravitational acceleration. Call this field the MOND-chameleon field. In other words, the MOND-concept that there is a problem with Newton’s 2nd law of motion results from the (possibly false) assumption that MOND-chameleon particles do not exist. In Einstein’s field equations, replace the -1/2 by -1/2 + MOND-chameleon-tracking-function. If the MOND-chameleon-tracking-function is roughly constant for the range of gravitational accelerations of MOND-validity, then MOND is recovered. Quantum electrodynamics (QED) has a renormalization scheme. Quantum gravitational theory might have a renormalization scheme in which some particles have a variable effective mass depending upon the nearby gravitational acceleration and/or the nearby energy density. (The reason might be that quantum gravitational effects are physically manifested when gravitational acceleration is immensely high and/or energy density is immensely high.) Assume that MOND-chameleon particles and MOND-Khoury-Weltman-chamelon particles exist. By definition, MOND-Khoury-Weltman particles have variable effective mass depending upon both the nearby gravitational acceleration and the nearby energy density. If Guth inflation can occur in one universe with a specific value CC1 for the cosmological constant and give rise to another universe with a different specific value CC2 for the cosmological constant, then MOND-Khoury-Weltman-chameleon particles might be needed to explain in terms of the string landscape how the variation from CC1 to CC2 took place. How might square-root(mass) be assigned a physical meaning? At the Planck scale there could be tiny shock waves that trade virtual energy among alternate universes in the string landscape. The mass-energy of such a shock wave could be associated with a volume of spacetime depending upon the renormalization scheme for quantum gravity. Thus, square-root(mass) might be associated with area. How might Lestone’s theory of virtual cross sections be explained in terms of the string landscape? The alternate universes of the string landscape might be networked together with an interstitium among the alternate universes. The tiny shock waves associated with square-root(mass) might create a higher-dimensional ultra-hot interstitium. Lestone’s virtual cross sections might be associated with tiny higher-dimensional bubbles within the interstitium of the string landscape. MOND-chameleon bosons and MOND-Khoury-Weltman bosons might be empirical evidence for the hypothesis that tiny shock waves trade virtual energy among alternate universes in the string landscape and thereby create a higher-dimensional ultra-hot interstitium within the string landscape. In other words, the effects of the tiny shock waves might be physically manifested in the MOND-chameleon field and the MOND-Khoury-Weltman-chameleon field but not directly in the Higgs field or the other quantum fields associated with ordinary matter.

view post as summary

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

view entire post

According to a 2016 publication by Verlinde, on page 13 “We like to emphasize that we have not derived the theory of modified Newtonian dynamics as proposed by Milgrom.” On page 43, “In order to explain the observed phenomena we did not postulate the existence of a dark matter particle, nor did we modify the gravitational laws in an adhoc way. Instead we have tried to understand their origin and their mutual relation by taking seriously the theoretical indications coming from string theory and black hole physics that spacetime and gravity are emergent.” On page 2 there is a discussion of the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy S = area-of-the-event-horizon / ( 4 * G * hbar) and the Hawking temperature T = hbar * surface-acceleration / (2 * pi).

“Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe” by Erik P. Verlinde, 2016

I want to suggest a way in which Verlinde’s theory of emergent gravity might be replaced by a theory of MOND-chameleon particles arising from the string landscape. Assume that there is an hbar-renormalization-alpha-prime-integration scheme for the string landscape. Instead of assuming that gravity is emergent, assume that a quantum gravitational renormalization scheme is emergent. After integrating over the string landscape to eliminate alpha-prime, there might be uncertain-S and uncertain-T, where S is the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy and T is the Hawking temperature; the uncertainty depends upon hbar and the quantum gravitational renormalization scheme which results from the integration of the hbar-renormalization-alpha-prime-integration scheme. This would yield an uncertain-emergent-gravity with an associated quantum gravitational renormalization scheme. Each uncertain-emergent-gravity might be (non-relativistically) slightly different from MOND, but after calculating the quantum-gravitational-running-masses associated with the MOND-chameleon quantum field, there might be statistically significant differences between the general relativistic pole masses and the quantum-gravitational-running-masses for the MOND-chameleon particles, yielding excellent (non-relativistic) agreement with MOND. Thus after the quantum-gravitational approximation over the string landscape, the -1/2 in Einstein’s field equations might be replaced by -1/2 + MOND-chameleon-tracking-function, where this tracking-function is merely a result of the (possibly false) assumption that MOND-chameleon particles do not exist. Thus, according to this speculation, there might be a way to introduce a new layer of uncertainty into Verlinde’s theory of emergence and thereby introduce one (or more?) MOND-chameleon quantum fields that might explain Milgrom’s MOND.

view post as summary

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

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

view entire post

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

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

NOVA | Elegant Universe | Sheldon Glashow | PBS

I speculate as follows: Bell’s theorem is philosophically wrong, but empirically irrefutable. The string landscape is philosophically wrong, but empirically irrefutable. What do I mean by the 2 preceding statements? My guess is that there are 2 basic possibilities for the foundations of physics: string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis or string theory with the finite nature hypothesis. If the finite nature hypothesis is wrong, then my guess is that there is a unified theory of mathematics and theoretical physics, but there is no unified theory of theoretical physics and theoretical computer science. My guess is that constructive string theory can be embedded into nonconstructive string theory which can be embedded into differential geometry + algebraic geometry. Mochizuki’s IUT might have an analogy in a theory of alternate universes of quantum logics based upon different string vacua. My guess is that Witten’s 11-dimensional model is the correct description of the local geometry of the string landscape. However, the string landscape should have a global geometry with a theory of global virtual thermodynamics. The problem is to generalize from a 1st order theory of quantum entanglement in quantum field theory to a 2nd order theory of quantum entanglement in the string landscape. However, there is no empirical data array that describes alternate universes and their structure within the string landscape. If string theory with the finite nature hypothesis is empirically valid then it might be mandatory that there should be theory of the string landscape that explains all known empirical data — but the explanation might be mathematically awkward and somewhat implausible.

If the string landscape is a physical reality, then I would bet in favor of some version of chameleon particles as an explanation for the empirical successes of Milgrom's MOND. By definition, Khoury-Weltman-chameleon particles are hypothetical particles that have variable effective mass depending upon nearby energy density. What might be an argument in favor of the existence of Khoury-Weltman-chameleon particles? Suppose that a universe with value CC1 for its particular cosmological constant undergoes a Guth-type inflation event. The inflation event might create another universe with a different value CC2 for its newborn cosmological constant. Then there might be a necessity for a Khoury-Weltman-chameleon mechanism that mediates the change from CC1 to CC2.

By definition, MOND-Khoury-Weltman-chameleon particles are hypothetical particles that have variable effective mass depending upon both nearby gravitational acceleration and nearby energy density. Suppose that the equivalence principle is 100% correct. There might be a quantum-gravitational theory that, after applying mathematical procedures based upon the equivalence principle, might yield 3 different types of Feynman diagrams: diagrams for ordinary matter, diagrams for dark matter, and diagrams for dark energy. There might be Feynman diagrams specifically for MOND-chameleon particles and Feynman diagrams specifically for MOND-Khoury-Weltman-chameleon particles.

If the string landscape is a physical reality, then I would bet in favor of some version of inflationary cosmology. Google "alan guth inflationary cosmology youtube" to see more information on this topic.

view post as summary

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

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

view entire post

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

Euclidean geometry generalizes to Riemannian geometry, which provides the mathematical basis for general relativity theory. Presumably, at least in mathematical terms, general relativity theory can be generalized to some version(s) of the string landscape. On the other hand, Euclidean geometry generalizes to algebraic geometry, which in turn generalizes to Grothendieck’s more abstract approach to algebraic geometry.

From Wikipedia, “Grothendieck's relative point of view is a heuristic applied in certain abstract mathematical situations, with a rough meaning of taking for consideration families of 'objects' explicitly depending on parameters, as the basic field of study, rather than a single such object. It is named after Alexander Grothendieck, who made extensive use of it in treating foundational aspects of algebraic geometry. Outside that field, it has been influential particularly on category theory and categorical logic. ... Assuming that we don’t have a commitment to one 'set theory' (all toposes are in some sense equally set theories for some intuitionistic logic) it is possible to state everything relative to some given set theory that acts as a base topos.”

Grothendieck's relative point of view, Wikipedia

My guess is that Grothendieck’s relative point of view generalizes to higher conceptual approaches as exemplified by Mochizuki’s IUT. In other words, it seems to me that general relativity is somewhat like Grothendieck’s relative point of view, and the string landscape is somewhat like Mochizuki’s IUT.

I suggest that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle might be generalized to:

standard-deviation-of-position * standard-deviation-of-momentum ≥ (hbar/2) * (string-landscape-factor), where string-landscape-factor = function-F(higher-fractional-dimension-from-M-theory-dependi
ng-upon-MOND-Khoury-Weltman-chameleon-particles)/4), where the hypothetical higher-fractional-dimension varies between 4 and 10 and function-F is a real-valued increasing function on the closed interval [1, 2.5] with function-F(1) = 1.

Can Milgrom’s MOND be modeled by some theory of the string landscape in which gravitinos are always MOND-Khoury-Weltman-chameleon-particles and mediate Guth’s eternal cosmological inflation?

view post as summary

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

view entire post

“How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intentions?” Physics deals with time, space, energy, measurement, information, and symmetry. In algebraic geometry, can time and energy be introduced in various ways? What is mathematics? What is the role of mathematics in understanding reality? Is mathematics that part of conscious thought that is precise, logically consistent, and conceptually important? Is there a unified theory of mathematics and theoretical physics? There might be 3 basic approaches to the foundations of mathematics: (1) abstract logic (e.g. Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory and its generalizations); (2) unification of all the branches of mathematics within a unified theory of algebraic geometry, differential geometry. and theoretical physics; (3) understanding mathematics in terms of molecular psychology (i.e. psychology formulated in terms of molecular biology). In terms of string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis, how might big bangs occur? Google "guth eternal inflation". According to Guth ("Eternal inflation and its implications", 2007), "Although the infinity of pocket universes produced by eternal inflation are unobservable, it is argued that eternal inflation has real consequences in terms of the way that predictions are extracted from theoretical models. The ambiguities in defining probabilities in eternally inflating spacetimes are reviewed, with emphasis on the youngness paradox that results from a synchronous gauge regularization technique. Although inflation is generically eternal into the future, it is not eternal into the past: it can be proven under reasonable assumptions that the inflating region must be incomplete in past directions, so some physics other than inflation is needed to describe the past boundary of the inflating region." Is the Koide formula essential for understanding the foundations of physics? Does square-root(mass) have some interpretation as area? In each 4-volume of spacetime, there might be a probability distribution of big bangs spontaneously occurring — this might link the 4-volume of spacetime with mass-energy.

How might objects, morphisms, and uncertainty principles involving morphisms be combined into a unified theory? Is there a Mochizuki landscape for every nonlinear partial differential equation with an uncertainty principle?

view post as summary

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

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

view entire post

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

According to Wikipedia, “The string theory landscape refers to the huge number of possible false vacua in string theory. … The large number of possibilities arises from different choices of Calabi–Yau manifolds and different values of generalized magnetic fluxes over different homology cycles.”

String theory landscape, Wikipedia

According to Witten, “Plenty of leading physicists -- prominent examples being Steve Weinberg and Martin Rees -- have taken the acceleration of the cosmic expansion seriously as a hint that a landscape interpretation of the universe may be correct.”

blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physics-
titan-still-thinks-string-theory-is-on-the-right-track/ 22 September 2014 interview of Edward Witten by John Horgan

It seems to me that MOND has an explanation as either (1) an apparent effect somehow resulting from unknown effects of the string landscape or (2) a real effect indicating that Newtonian-Einsteinian gravitational theory is significantly wrong. The empirical successes of MOND suggest a re-evaluation of Newton’s 3 laws of motion. Consider (± 1st law, ± 2nd law, ± 3rd law), where + means true and - means false. The string theorists are in favor of (+ 1st law, + 2nd law, + 3rd law). Is it possible that gravitinos are MOND-Khoury-Weltman-chameleon particles that adequately explain MOND? If the concepts of energy and spacetime break down near the Planck scale, then the fundamental geometric tensor and the energy tensor might need to be replaced by higher mathematical abstractions involving the string landscape. Let ZFC represent Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice. According to the results of Gödel, in first order logic there are infinitely propositions that are true but unprovable in ZFC (provided that ZF is consistent). In the string theory landscape are there infinitely many interesting empirical propositions that are true but inherently untestable? Suppose that there are three axioms, Axiom1, Axiom2, and Axiom3, that are independent of each other and relevant to the string theory landscape. Then ZFC with different combinations of choices from {± Axiom1, ± Axiom2, ± Axiom3} might yield alternate approaches to the foundations of physics. There might be 3 parameters, Parameter1, Parameter2, and Parameter3, that vary over different physical quantities and yield instantiations model-ZFC(Parameter1,Parameter2,Parameter3) within some landscape-like geometric structure. Instead of taking ultraproducts over a fixed model of ZFC, there might a Mochizuki theory of Mochizuki-ultraproducts generating different models of the string landscape with the generating process involving geometric variation over some Mochizuki-structure with varying models of ZFC. There might be infinitely many ways of introducing time and energy into algebraic geometry that are compatible with the empirical facts discovered by physicists. Various ways of introducing time and energy into algebraic geometry might be part of a unified theory of algebraic geometry, differential geometry, and string theory. Could the string landscape evolve in different ways according to esoteric mathematical axioms involving the foundations of set theory? Does a continuum of physical possibilities necessarily involve questions in the foundations of set theory?

view post as summary

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

view entire post

What is randomness? Why does randomness exist? Are success and failure always the results of a mixture of causality and randomness? Do people always run the risk of being destroyed by their own failures or being destroyed by their own successes? Why is success a danger? A method, strategy, or lifestyle that leads to success might create overconfidence, complacency, or unanticipated dangers. Some dangers are determined but some dangers are random. Do those who adopt a consumer lifestyle run the risk of being destroyed by their own luxuries? Do those who adopt a technological lifestyle run the risk of being destroyed by their own gizmos? Do those who adopt a successful theory run the risk of being deceived by their own assumptions within the successful theory? The string theorists believe that Einstein’s field equations are the correct mathematical formulation of the equivalence principle — here I agree. The string theories believe that dark matter obeys the equivalence principle — but I conjecture that dark matter has positive gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy. Fredkin has conjectured that there are no local sources of randomness. If quantum information is the fundamental basis of physics, then randomness might be an irreducible mystery. If quantum information can be reduced to Fredkin-Wolfram information, then randomness might be the irreducible ignorance generated by Wolfram’s cosmological automation. If Fredkin and Wolfram are basically wrong, then Witten’s 11-dimensional model might be a description of the local geometry of the string landscape. If Fredkin and Wolfram are basically correct, then Witten’s 11-dimensional model might be the key to understanding why 11^2 divides the order of the monster group and how the monster group and the 6 pariah groups explain string theory with the finite nature hypothesis.

“Is quantum mechanics the ultimate description of nature? … Is space-time doomed?” — David Gross

“The Future of Physics”, David Gross, CERN, 26 January 2005

view post as summary

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

view entire post

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

String Theory: A Controversy in Ten Dimensions, mit.edu

“Ed is unique — the kind of person who comes along once a century.” — John Schwarz, concerning Edward Witten

Is string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis philosophically wrong but empirically irrefutable? Does string theory with the finite nature hypothesis lead to success in explaining dark matter? Is infinity beyond measurement and therefore not really part of empirical science? Is measurement a natural process that separates the boundary of the multiverse from the interior of the multiverse?

How can string theory explain dark matter? If the Heisenberg uncertainty principle needs to be replaced by a new uncertainty principle involving both hbar and alpha-prime, then I make 2 guesses: the 1st guess is that MOND-chameleon particles exist; the 2nd guess is that there is a quantum theory of gravity in which MOND-chameleon articles have pole masses in general relativity theory and running masses in quantum gravitational theory — the running masses would depend on the nearby gravitational acceleration for the MOND-chameleon particles. However, I conjecture that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle fails only when the concept of measurement fails. Consider 3 conjectures: (1) Wolfram’s “A New Kind of Science” is one of the greatest books ever written. (2) There are 6 basic quarks because there are 6 pariah groups. (3) The monster group and the 6 pariah groups describe how quark tracking develops from Fredkin-Wolfram information below the Planck scale. What might be the physical meaning of the monster group? The order of the monster group is:

2^46 * 3^20 * 5^9 * 7^6 * 11^2 * 13^3 * 17 * 19 * 23 * 29 * 31 * 41 * 47 * 59 * 71

Monster group, wikipedia.org

Does 11^2 represent a storage area for information associated with Witten’s 11-dimensional model? Does 7^6 represent 6 basic quarks each with 3 dimensions of linear momentum, 3 dimensions of angular momentum, and 1 dimension of quantum spin? Do the prime numbers 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 41, 47, 59, and 71 represent 9 spatial dimensions in the superstring model with 9 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time? If a prime p divides the order of the monster group, then does nature contain a profound symmetry involving p and Fredkin-Wolfram information below the Planck scale? Does Wolfram’s cosmological automaton use the monster group and the 6 pariah groups to distribute Fredkin-Wolfram information yielding an approximation to quantum information? Does string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis provide a mathematically awkward explanation of MOND and the space roar?

“… What insights are to be gained from category-theoretic, informational, geometric and operational approaches to formulating quantum theory? … How do different concepts of probability contribute to interpreting quantum theory?”

“The Oxford Questions on the foundations of physics” (p. 3) by G. A. D. Briggs, J. N. Butterfield, A. Zeilinger, 2013, arxiv.org

Does nature require probability theory with the infinite nature hypothesis? Is there a unique mathematical method for unifying mathematics, theoretical physics, and theoretical computer science? Are Milgrom’s MOND, the Koide formula, and Lestone’s theory of virtual cross sections essential for understanding the foundations of physics?

view post as summary

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

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

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

view entire post

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

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

The question was posed to Dr. Rabi by his friend and mine, Arthur Sackler, himself a multitalented genius, who, sadly, also passed away recently. Dr. Rabi's answer, as reported by Dr. Sackler, was profound: ''My mother made me a scientist without ever intending it. Every other Jewish mother in Brooklyn would ask her child after school: 'So? Did you learn anything today?' But not my mother. She always asked me a different question. 'Izzy,' she would say, 'did you ask a good question today?' That difference - asking good questions -made me become a scientist!'' ...

'Izzy, Did You Ask a Good Question Today?’, Letter to the Editor by Donald Sheff, NY Times, published 19 January 1988

Fredkin has conjectured that infinities, infinitesimals, perfectly continuous variables, and local sources of randomness do not occur in nature — is Fredkin correct and how might his ideas be tested? Are there 6 basic quarks because there are 6 pariah groups? Does time exist because 2^46 divides the order of the monster group? Does space exist because 3^20 divides the order of the monster group? Is Milgrom’s MOND 100% compatible with string theory and supersymmetry?

I conjecture that there might be a way of making MOND 100% compatible with general relativity theory as follows: Assume that there exist ± alternate-universe-charges (AUCs). Assume that gravitons have + AUCs and gravitinos have - AUCs in our universe, and there exist gravitons with - AUCs and gravitinos with + AUCs in alternate universes. My guess is that there might be a way of using AUCs to create a string theoretical model in which gravitinos are MOND-chameleon particles that have variable effective mass depending upon nearby gravitational acceleration.

view post as summary

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

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

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

view entire post

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

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

Is there a unified theory of mathematics and theoretical physics? Is mathematics that part of human thought which is precise, logically consistent, and fundamentally important? My guess is that, over the next 20 years, string theory will split into 2 distinct disciplines: (1) stringy physics which attempts to make empirically valid predictions and to explain the foundations of physics and (2) stringy mathematics which attempts to prove mathematical theorems with motivations from stringy physics. I make the 4 following conjectures: (1) The Copenhagen Interpretation is philosophically wrong but empirically irrefutable. (2) Bell’s theorem is philosophically wrong but empirically irrefutable. (3) Supersymmetry is philosophically wrong but empirically irrefutable. (4) The string landscape is philosophically wrong but empirically irrefutable. What do I mean by “philosophically wrong”? In terms of empiricism, a theory might be, at the most fundamental level, actually wrong but able to generate mathematical structures that (although mathematically awkward) can model any plausible empirical reality. The Copenhagen Interpretation is remarkably successful in pragmatic terms but does not specify in mathematically precise terms what measurement is, what the fundamental cosmological structure is, how many degrees of freedom there are in nature, or how many fundamentally distinct quantum fields exist. Consider the “Yang-Mills Existence and Mass Gap” problem as specified among the 7 Millennium Prize Problems.

Yamg-Mills existence and mass gap, Wikipedia

If the Yang-Mills Existence and Mass Gap Problem has a positive solution in terms of existence then I would bet in favor of string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis. If not, then I would bet in favor of string theory with the finite nature hypothesis. My guess is that, at the Planck scale, the concepts of energy and spacetime break down in terms of 2 possibilities: (1) higher mathematics (i.e. the mathematical symmetries of the string landscape) or (2) lower mathematics (i.e. Wolfram’s cosmological automaton). Note that I have suggested 3 modifications to Einstein’s field equation: (1) a modification corresponding to the alleged Fernández-Rañada-Milgrom effect; (2) a modification corresponding to the Koide formula and the explanation of the space roar; and (3) a modification corresponding to Lestone’s heuristic string theory. Am I completely wrong? Perhaps so — I suggest that there are 2 main possibilities: (1) string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis and modification of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle or (2) string theory with the finite nature hypothesis and modification of Einstein’s field equations in a way compatible with Milgrom’s MOND.

view post as summary

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

view entire post

If, at the most fundamental level, string theory occurs in nature as Calabi-Yau manifolds and curling up of extra spatial dimensions, then my guess is that Witten is the Newton-Einstein of contemporary cosmology. If, at the most fundamental level, string theory occurs in nature as finite digital approximations to Fredkin-Wolfram information somehow connected with the Leech lattice, then my guess is that Witten is not the Newton-Einstein of contemporary cosmology.

Calabi-Yau manifold, Wikipedia

Leech lattice, Wikipedia

Have string theorists underestimated Stephen Wolfram?

Stephen Wolfram received a PhD in physics from Caltech in 1979 when he was 20 years old.

Stephen Wolfram, Wikipedia

Consider Wolfram’s Simple Rules Hypothesis: There exist 4 or 5 simple rules that completely specify Wolfram’s cosmological automaton. These 4 or 5 simple rules yield empirically valid approximations to quantum field theory and general relativity theory. Is the preceding hypothesis false? I say that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. I make the 2 following conjectures: (1) If string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis is empirically valid, then Witten is the Newton-Einstein of contemporary cosmology and MOND-chameleon particles exist. (2) If string theory with the finite nature hypothesis is empirically valid, then the person most responsible for proving Wolfram’s Simple Rules Hypothesis would be the Newton-Einstein of contemporary cosmology. Are the 2 preceding conjectures wrong? I say that my 3 most important ideas are: (1) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. (2) The Koide formula is essential for understanding the foundations of physics. (3) Lestone’s theory of virtual cross sections is essential for understanding the foundations of physics. Is possible that the preceding 3 ideas are wrong? I say that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology on the basis of empirical evidence which now exists. I am unsure about the Koide formula and Lestone’s theory of virtual cross sections. If the Koide formula and/or Lestone’s theory of virtual cross sections are not important in physics, then my guess is that my basic theory is totally wrong. On the other hand, my basic theory might be totally wrong and yet Koide and Lestone might be correct. If string theory and the infinite nature hypothesis are empirically valid, then my guess is that MOND-chameleon particles play an important role in maintaining the structure of the multiverse (which would consist of a Markov branching process understood in terms of the Copenhagen Interpretation). There might be a multiverse interstitium in which quantum information is exchanged among alternate universes (but the exchange would be at the Planck scale and incapable of sending information from one alternate universe to another alternate universe). The multiverse interstitium would be higher dimensional and ultra-hot.

Lestone has suggested that “electromagnetism is generated by the exchange of virtual Hawking radiation between elementary particles with properties that resemble black holes.”

“Possible path for the calculation of the fine structure constant, Los Alamos Report LA-UR-16-22121” by John P. Lestone. 4 April 2016, Los Alamos National Laboratory

Suppose that my basic theory (string theory with the finite nature hypothesis) is correct. My guess is that string theory is a bridge between Wolfram’s cosmological automaton and empirical predictions. Wolfram’s automaton might simulate a multiverse interstitium in which the Koide formula and Lestone’s theory of virtual cross sections are consequences of how (hypothetical) MOND-chameleon particles are essential for maintaining the structure of the multiverse. The (hypothetical) MOND-chameleon particles would be based on supersymmetry; furthermore, taking the limits to infinity of all of the wavelengths of superpartners of ordinary particles would yield an approximation to Wolframian pseudo-supersymmetry.

view post as summary

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

view entire post

Consider 3 conjectures: (1) The basic epistemological path of string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis is to explain the foundations of physics by introducing the string landscape and modifying the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. (2) The basic epistemological path of string theory with the finite nature hypothesis is to explain the foundations of physics by introducing Wolfram’s cosmological automaton and modifying Einstein’s field equations. (3) In the debate between Bohr and Einstein on the foundations of quantum theory, string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis represents Bohr’s side of the debate, while string theory with the finite nature hypothesis represents Einstein’s side of the debate. Are the 3 preceding conjectures wrong? Is our universe merely a tiny part of an unknown multiverse?

“What we hear about eternal inflation or the string landscape, seems somehow unavoidably to lead to some kind of multiverse. However, it seems to me there is a fundamental problem there. Once of course you have the multiverse, then you can start playing around and try to find probability or getting to the anthropic principle, or whatever. But the point is that the picture is essentially a classical one, and it is difficult to see that if you have many universes, coming essentially with an inflationary state, that there would not be plenty of horizons in this. Now the quantum mechanics of horizons is, I think, perfectly not understood. The simplest example is the black hole, where after all nobody knows really if the problem lies in the singularity or if it lies really already in the horizon. Therefore one seems to be faced with a fundamental problem if one tries to play with the multiverse. Either it is quantum mechanically inconsistent, in which case it is just wrong, or you have to go to a form of quantum mechanics which is not known and which has to come at that level as a different way of understanding things. Of course, I have no answer for this, but I think that problem, conceptually, seems to be in my opinion fundamental”. — François Englert

as quoted on page 309 of “The Theory of the Quantum World: Proceedings of the 25th Solvay Conference on Physics, Brussels, Belgium 19-22 October 2011”, Gross, David; Henneaux, Marc; Sevrin, Alexander, eds. 2013

No one expects a fundamental theory of physics to predict (mass of Jupiter)/(mass of Saturn). Do theories of the multiverse attempt to explain what physicists might reasonably expect to predict and what physicists might not reasonably expect to predict?

I say that my 3 most important ideas are: (1) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. (2) The Koide formula is essential for understanding the foundations of physics. (3) Lestone’s theory of virtual cross sections is essential for understanding the foundations of physics. I have suggested 3 modifications to Einstein’s field equations: (1) dark-matter-compensation-constant > 0 as an explanation of MOND using the ideas of Fernández-Rañada & Tiemblo-Ramos, (2) Koide cutoff preventing an arbitrarily close approximation to absolute zero, and (3) Lestone cutoff preventing the formation of event horizons. My basic theory (i.e. string theory with the finite nature hypothesis) assumes that dark matter has positive gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy, while dark energy has negative gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy. Let us assume that my basic theory (i.e. string theory with the finite nature hypothesis) is wrong. The Koide formula and Lestone’s theory of virtual cross sections might be essential clues for restricting the string landscape. String theorists believe that Einstein’s field equations are the correct formulation of the equivalence principle, and I believe that the string theorists are correct on this particular point. My guess is that string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis implies supersymmetry with dark-matter-compensation-constant = 0, while nature with the finite nature hypothesis implies Wolframian pseudo-symmetry with dark-matter-compensation-constant = sqrt((60±10)/4) * 10^–5. Does nature have supersymmetry or Wolframian pseudo-supersymmetry?

“Supersymmetry is a subject of considerable interest among physicists and mathematicians. Not only is it fascinating in its own right, but there is also a growing belief that it may play a fundamental role in particle physics. This belief is based on an important result of Haag, Sohnius, and Lopuszanski, who proved that the supersymmetry algebra is the only graded Lie algebra of symmetries of the S-matrix consistent with relativistic quantum field theory.”

“Supersymmetry and Supergravity”, 2nd edition, by Julius Wess & Jonathan Bagger

If the equivalence principle is correct for dark matter, then my guess is that dark matter particles in the form of MOND-chameleon particles might be the explanation for dark matter. Should the basic goal of string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis be to replace supersymmetry with MOND-compatible-supersymmetry?

view post as summary

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

view entire post

“One can give good reasons why reality cannot at all be represented by a continuous field. From the quantum phenomena it appears to follow with certainty that a finite system of energy can be completely described by a finite set of numbers (quantum numbers). This does not seem to be in accordance with a continuum theory, and must lead to find a purely algebraic theory for the description of reality. But nobody knows how to obtain the basis of such a theory.” — Albert Einstein

“The Meaning of Relativity”, 5th edition, pages 165–166

“The object of all science, whether natural science or psychology, is to co-ordinate our experiences and to bring them into a logical system.” — Albert Einstein

“The Meaning of Relativity”, 6th edition, page 1

Empirical findings have validated quantum field theory and general relativity theory, but, as yet, physicists are not agreed upon how these two theories might be unified into a logical system. What might be wrong with general relativity theory? Does our universe expand for an infinite duration of time?

According to Edward Fredkin, infinities, infinitesimal, perfectly continuous variables, and local sources of randomness are figments of the imagination that never occur in nature. Is Fredkin correct? I have introduced 3 speculative modifications to Einstein’s field equations: (1) dark-matter-compensation-constant = sqrt((60±10)/4) * 10^–5, (2) Koide cutoff, and (3) Lestone cutoff.

I say that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. I say that the Gravity Probe B science team misinterpreted their own experiment. I conjecture that the Koide cutoff explains the space roar. I conjecture that the Lestone cutoff might explain the discrepancies in the measurements of the Hubble constant. What do I mean by the “Lestone cutoff”?

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. For the sake of argument, assume that dark-matter-compensation-constant = 0 and that R(min) = 0 but T(max) is some very large pure number — I call the T(max) modification the “Lestone cutoff”. However, my ideas on the Koide cutoff, the Lestone cutoff, and the dark-matter-compensation-constant might be empirically wrong. Perhaps, the Gravity Probe B science team is correct about the malfunctioning of the 4 ultra-precise gyroscopes. In any case, I say that the empirical evidence shows that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. Is Milgrom’s MOND an essential clue for those in search of a theory of quantum gravity?

According to Stacy McGaugh: Either:

(1) Most of the Mass in the Universe is Invisible (Dark Matter), or

(2) Dynamical Laws must be Modified (MOND).

The Basic Issue, The MOND Pages, Stacy McGaugh

Consider 5 conjectures:

(1) The empirical successes of MOND indicate that supersymmetry needs to be replaced by MOND-compatible supersymmetry.

(2) Gravitons and gravitinos have D-brane charges that constitute empirical evidence that D-branes and alternate universes influence gravitational accelerations.

(3) Gravitinos are MOND-chameleon particles that have variable effective mass depending upon nearby gravitational acceleration.

(4) For galactic dynamics, most of the mass-energy of dark matter particles has the form of MOND-chameleon particles that have variable effective mass depending upon nearby gravitational acceleration. The empirical successes of MOND can be explained as follows: Replace the -1/2 in the standard form of Einstein’s field by a term which represents an apparent (but not real) failure of general relativity theory. The apparent failure is caused by ignoring the existence of MOND-chameleon particles. In other words, replace the -1/2 by -1/2 + MOND-chameleon-tracking-function — how might this explain MOND? In the range of validity of MOND, assume that MOND-chameleon-tracking-function is roughly a constant = sqrt((60±10)/4) * 10^–5 . Outside the range of validity of MOND, assume that MOND-chameleon-tracking function is roughly = 0 except for an unspecified transition range. An easy scaling argument shows that this amounts to boosting the gravitational redshift in such a way that there appears to be a universal acceleration constant as postulated in MOND.

(5) It is possible to mathematically define a D-brane corresponding to any plausible MOND-chameleon-tracking function.

For more thoughts on the foundations of physics and dark matter, see:

Triton Station: A Blog about the Science and Sociology of Cosmology and Dark Matter, Stacy McGaugh

view post as summary

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

view entire post

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

In the past, it would have seemed inconceivable that all the richness of our universe could be generated just by a few simple lines of code. But once we’ve seen what’s possible, and what’s out there in the computational universe, it’s a whole different story. I won’t get into this in detail here. It’s a big topic. But suffice it to say that if the universe can really be represented by a few simple lines of code, then it’s inevitable that that code must operate at a very low level. Below, for example, our current notions of space, and time, and quantum mechanics, and so on.” — Stephen Wolfram

Imagining the Future with a New Kind of Science—Stephen Wolfram, 18 October 2011

“Why is space-time doomed? There are many reasons, among which: In string theory we can change the dimension of space-time by changing the strength of the string force. Thus, the so-called II-A string theory, which semi-classically describes closed strings moving in ten-dimensional flat space for very weak coupling is dual for strong coupling to a theory, called M-theory, that at low energies is described by eleven-dimensional supergravity. By increasing the string coupling we can grow an extra dimension. How can the spatial continuum be fundamental if the number of spatial dimensions can be so changed?” — David Gross

"Einstein and the Search for Unification", p. 11, in ''The legacy of Albert Einstein: a collection of essays in celebration of the year of physics'' (2007)

My guess is that, at the Planck scale, the concepts of energy and spacetime need to be replaced by higher mathematics (i.e. mathematical symmetries of the string landscape) or by lower mathematics (i.e. Wolfram’s cosmological automaton). How can Wolfram’s cosmological automaton be precisely defined? My guess is that string theory with the finite nature hypothesis needs to be embedded into string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis. Wolframian pseudo-supersymmetry might need to be defined as a limit of MOND-compatible-supersymmetry as the energies of all the undiscovered superpartners approach zero.

According to Wikipedia, “In computing, an emulator is hardware or software that enables one computer system (called the host) to behave like another computer system (called the guest). An emulator typically enables the host system to run software or use peripheral devices designed for the guest system.”

Emulator, Wikipedia

My guess is that Wolfram’s cosmological automaton might be physically understood as an emulator of a constructive theory of a Markov branching process for a multiverse defined in terms of the string landscape with MOND-compatible-supersymmetry. In terms of string theory with the string landscape and the multiverse hypothesis, during each Planck time interval, each particular alternate universe would branch into an infinity of new alternate universes. Are the empirical successes of MOND a form of evidence that D-branes (and/or fivebrane solitons) are physical realities?

Consider 5 conjectures:

(1) MOND's empirical successes indicate that supersymmetry needs to be replaced by MOND-compatible-supersymmetry.

(2) Gravitons and gravitinos have D-brane charges that constitute empirical evidence that D-branes and alternate universes influence gravitational accelerations.

(3) Gravitinos are MOND-chameleon particles that have variable effective mass depending upon nearby gravitational acceleration. The MOND-chameleon property somehow represents how D-branes maintain the structure of the multiverse.

(4) For galactic dynamics, most of the mass-energy of dark matter particles has the form of MOND-chameleon particles that have variable effective mass depending upon nearby gravitational acceleration. MOND's empirical successes can be explained as follows: Replace the -1/2 in the standard form of Einstein’s field by a term which represents an apparent (but not real) failure of general relativity theory. The apparent failure is caused by ignoring the existence of MOND-chameleon particles. In other words, replace the -1/2 by -1/2 + MOND-chameleon-tracking-function — how might this explain MOND? In the range of validity of MOND, assume that MOND-chameleon-tracking-function is roughly a constant = sqrt((60±10)/4) * 10^–5 . Outside the range of validity of MOND, assume that MOND-chameleon-tracking function is roughly = 0 except for an unspecified transition range. An easy scaling argument shows that this amounts to boosting the gravitational redshift in such a way that there appears to be a universal acceleration constant as postulated in MOND.

(5) It is possible to mathematically define a D-brane corresponding to any plausible MOND-chameleon-tracking function.

For more thoughts on the foundations of physics and dark matter, see:

Triton Station: A Blog about the Science and Sociology of Cosmology and Dark Matter, Stacy McGaugh

view post as summary

"Why does MOND get any predictions right? It has had many a priori predictions come true. Why does this happen?" — Stacy McGaugh

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

view entire post

"Why does MOND get any predictions right? It has had many a priori predictions come true. Why does this happen?" — Stacy McGaugh

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

According to Wikipedia, “Gravity Probe B (GP-B) was a satellite-based mission which launched on 20 April 2004 on a Delta II rocket; its aim was to measure spacetime curvature near Earth, and thereby the stress–energy tensor (which is related to the distribution and the motion of matter in space) in and near Earth. This provided a test of general relativity, gravitomagnetism and related models. The principal investigator was Francis Everitt.”

Gravity Probe B, Wikipedia

“… Finally, during a planned 40-day, end-of-mission calibration phase, the team discovered that when the spacecraft was deliberately pointed away from the guide star by a large angle, the misalignment induced much larger torques on the rotors than expected. From this, they inferred that even the very small misalignments that occurred during the science phase of the mission induced torques that were probably several hundred times larger than the designers had estimated.

What ensued during the data analysis phase was worthy of a detective novel. The critical clue came from the calibration tests. Here, they took advantage of residual trapped magnetic flux on the gyroscope. (The designers used superconducting lead shielding to suppress stray fields before they cooled the niobium coated gyroscopes, but no shielding is ever perfect.) This flux adds a periodic modulation to the SQUID output, which the team used to figure out the phase and polhode angle of each rotor throughout the mission. This helped them to figure out that interactions between random patches of electrostatic potential fixed to the surface of each rotor, and similar patches on the inner surface of its spherical housing, were causing the extraneous torques. In principle, the rolling spacecraft should have suppressed these effects, but they were larger than expected. The patch interactions also accounted for the “jumps”: they occurred whenever a gyro’s slowly decreasing polhode period crossed an integer multiple of the spacecraft roll period. What looked like a jump of the spin direction was actually a spiraling path—known to navigators as a loxodrome. The team was able to account for all these effects in a parameterized model.

The original goal of GP-B was to measure the frame-dragging precession with an accuracy of 1%, but the problems discovered over the course of the mission dashed the initial optimism that this was possible. Although Everitt and his team were able to model the effects of the patches, they had to pay the price of the increase in error that comes from using a model with so many parameters. The experiment uncertainty quoted in the final result—roughly 20% for frame dragging—is almost totally dominated by those errors.” — Clifford M. Will

Viewpoint: Finally, results from Gravity Probe B, 31 May 2011, physics.aps.org

Are the unfortunate "interactions between random patches of electrostatic potential fixed to the surface of each rotor" merely a post-hoc explanation (which has never been confirmed by laboratory experiments on gyroscopes similar to those used by Gravity Probe B)?

I suggest that the 4 ultra-precise gyroscopes functioned correctly — if dark-matter-compensation-constant really does equal zero then my guess is that the gyroscopes found evidence in favor of MOND-compatible-supersymmetry in the form of MOND-chameleon particles.

view post as summary

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

view entire post

“One is left with the uneasy feeling that even if supersymmetry is actually false, as a feature of nature, and that accordingly no supersymmetry partners are ever found by the LHC or by any later more powerful accelerator, then the conclusion that some supersymmetry proponents might come to would not be that supersymmetry is false for the actual particles of nature, but merely that the level of supersymmetry breaking must be greater even that the level reached at that moment, and that a new even more powerful machine would be required to observe it!” — Roger Penrose

Chapter 1, Mathematical Elegance as a Driving Force, pp. 102–103, “Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy in the New Physics of the Universe”, 2016

Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy in the New Physics of the Universe, Wikipedia

Does supersymmetry need to be replaced by MOND-compatible-supersymmetry?

"MOND makes unique predictions about the relation between the mass distribution and kinematics. These predictions are confirmed with surprising accuracy in the observed rotation curves of observed galaxies, a phenomenon which is exceptionally well established observationally (Sanders & McGaugh 2002). I fail to see how this can be any more of an accident than the success of purely Newtonian gravity within the solar system. If dark matter is correct, this should not happen." — Stacy McGaugh

Why Consider MOND? — The MOND Pages

I say that my 3 most important ideas: (1) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. (2) The Koide formula is essential for understanding the foundations of physics. (3) Lestone’s theory of virtual cross sections is essential for understanding the foundations of physics. Are the preceding 3 ideas correct? My guess is that the 3 ideas can be explained both in terms of string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis and in terms of terms of string theory with the finite nature hypothesis. If Wolfram’s cosmological automaton really explains the foundations of physics, then it should be possible to embed string theory with the finite nature hypothesis into string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis in various ways.

What are the 3 most likely ways that the “64 Particles Hypothesis” might fail? My guess would be that the answer to preceding question is: (1) the existence of magnetic monopoles in free space, (2) the existence of supersymmetry or MOND-compatible-supersymmetry in the form of MOND-chameleon particles, or (3) the existence of Majorana particles in the form of Majorana neutrinos.

Majorana fermion. Wikipedia

How does Wolfram’s cosmological automaton makes sense in terms of physics? How can Wolfram’s cosmological automation make empirical predictions? One answer might be MOND-compatible-supersymmetry, which can then yield Wolframian pseudo-supersymmetry by means of a limiting process. My guess is that Fredkin-Wolfram information explains the foundations of physics, but the explanation will always be somewhat dubious because such Fredkin-Wolfram information cannot, in principle, be directly measured.

view post as summary

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

view entire post

Many of my posts on this thread might have drifted away from the question "How can mindless laws give rise to aims and intentions?" It seems to me that the question involves issues of string theory, the foundations of physics, and artificial intelligence. For information on artificial intelligence, google "bill gates kurzweil". My guess is that string theory crucially depends on the issue of the infinite nature hypothesis versus the finite nature hypothesis. I conjecture that MOND, the Koide formula, and Lestone's heuristic string theory can be fully justified in terms of string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis — although I still favor the finite nature hypothesis. At vixra.org, I posted the following:

"In his 2007 publication “Physics based calculation of the fine structure constant “ J. P. Lestone suggested that “the photon emission and absorption area A of an electron is controlled by a length scale” where the length scale is near the Planck length. What might be some of the implications of Lestone’s hypothesis? Renormalization in quantum electrodynamics deals with infinite integrals that arise in perturbation theory. Does Lestone’s hypothesis have important implications for renormalization? I conjecture that, EVEN AFTER QUANTUM AVERAGING, Maxwell’s equations might be false at the Planck scale, because Lestone’s heuristic string theory might be empirically valid. Let ρ represent the electric charge density (charge per unit volume). I conjecture that, in equation (19b) on page 23 of Einstein’s “The Meaning of Relativity” (5th edition), ρ should be replaced by the expression ρ/ (1 – (ρ^2 / (ρ(max))^2))^(1/2), where ρ(max) is the maximum of the absolute value of the electric charge density in the physical universe. Polchinski (2003) offered “two general principles of completeness: (1) In any theoretical framework that requires charge to be quantized, there will exist magnetic monopoles. (2) In any fully unified theory, for every gauge field there will exist electric and magnetic sources with the minimum relative Dirac quantum n = 1 (more precisely, the lattice of electric and magnetic charges is maximal).” It seems to me that Polchinski’s two general principles are likely to be correct if and only if nature is infinite."

Joseph Polchinski, Wikipedia

Am I correct in my estimation of Milgrom's MOND? Please see:

Triton Station, A Blog About the Science and Sociology of Cosmology and Dark Matter — Stacy McGaugh

view post as summary

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

view entire post

According to a brief history of renormalization by Kerson Huang, “Particle theorists have a peculiar sensitivity to the cutoff, because they regard it as a stigma that expresses an imperfect theory. In the early days of renormalization, when the cutoff was put out of sight by renormalization, some leaped to declare that the cutoff had been “sent to infinity.” That, of course, cannot be done by fiat. Only in QCD can one achieve that, owing to asymptotic freedom.” (page 13 of the following arXiv.org article)

"A Critical History of Renormalization", 2013, arXiv.org

Kerson Huang, Wikipedia

According to an introduction to renormalization by Ling-Fong Li, “Roughly speaking, the program of removing the infinities from physically measured quantities in relativistic field theory, the renormalization program, involves shuffling all divergences into bare quantities. In other words, we can redefine the unmeasurable quantities to absorb the divergences so that the physically measurable quantities are finite.” (Page 2 of the following arXiv.org article)

“Introduction to Renormalization in Field Theory”, 2012, arXiv.org

According to a review of supersymmetry by Stephen P. Martin, “… when any realistic supersymmetric theory is extended to include gravity, the resulting supergravity theory is non-renormalizable as a quantum field theory.” (page 49 of the following arXiv.org article)

“A Supersymmetry Primer” (1997 version 1; 2016 revised version 7), arXiv.org

Despite the fact that the preceding article lists 330 references, the name “Milgrom” seems to be missing.

According to Moore and Satheeskumar, “… The role of spacetime in string theory is totally different from that of any other theory. String theory has symmetries which equate symmetries of different dimension, geometry and topology. The number of dimensions is fixed by mathematical consistency and there is a provision for reducing the number of dimensions too. Bosonic and fermionic modes “see” different number of spacetime dimensions.”

arXiv.org preprint — Moore, D. G., and V. H. Satheeshkumar. "Spectral dimension of bosonic string theory." Physical Review D 90, no. 2 (2014): 024075.

At vixra.org I posted the following, “…Is spacetime 26-dimensional? Measurements of spacetime using clocks and surveying instruments demonstrate that spacetime is 4-dimensional. I say that, from one point of view, spacetime is 26-dimensional. 26 dimensions = 1 dimension of matter time + 1 dimension of antimatter time + 24 dimensions of (±, ±, ± )-space. What is (±, ±, ±)-space? For the measurement of space, employ 6 particle beams consisting of 3 electron beams and 3 positron beams. For each dimension of space, employ all 3-tuples of beams selected from the 6 beams. By definition, (±, ±, ±)-space consists of 3 dimensions of ordinary space, each of which is measured in 8 different ways by using all of the possible 3-tuples of the 6 beams. The 24 dimensions of (±, ±, ±)-space reduce to the 3 dimensions of ordinary space because quantum field theory is empirically valid — however, (±, ±, ±)-space might be useful for representational redundancy (because of the role that the Leech lattice plays in the foundations of physics.)”

Is representational redundancy of 26-dimensional bosonic string theory profoundly related to the problem of generalizing renormalization to effective calculations based upon the string landscape? Have the vast majority of physicists underestimated MOND? Is the replacement of supersymmetry by MOND-compatible-supersymmetry the key to understanding the fundamental theory that explains the empirical successes of MOND? Is there a form of MOND-compatible non-renormalizability that underlies the foundations of physics? In string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis is the main challenge to figure out how renormalization in quantum field theory gets replaced by computational non-renormalization in the string landscape?

view post as summary

QUESTION 1. What is the structure of reality?

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

view entire post

QUESTION 1. What is the structure of reality?

“In ordinary quantum theory, an elementary particle such as an electron is a point particle, albeit one that obeys rather subtle laws of quantum mechanics and relativity. In string theory, the starting point is to reinterpret an electron as a little vibrating loop of string, again subject to quantum mechanics and relativity. This little change turns out to have amazingly far-reaching consequences. The most significant is that although gravity – understood in modern times in terms of Einstein’s theory of General Relativity – is inconsistent with standard quantum field theory, it is forced upon us in string theory. String theory automatically generates quantum gravity while pre-string physics makes it, as far as we understand, impossible.” — Edward Witten

"ed witten's take on string theory" by Luca Mazzucato, Simons Center for Geometry and Physics, 8 November 2010

Is the following true? Fredkin-Wolfram information encodes quantum information encodes classical information — strings are smooth approximations to accumulations of Fredkin-Wolfram information. The string theorists discovered a mathematical geometrization of quantum probability amplitudes encompassing quantum field theory and general relativity theory. However, the string theorists assumed that gravitational energy is conserved — i.e. that dark-matter-compensation-constant = zero. This is likely to be wrong because Wolfram’s cosmological automation needs a timing mechanism that operates by moving gravitational energy from the boundary of the multiverse into the (physically non-measurable) interior of the multiverse. The Koide cutoff prevents time from being infinite. The Lestone cutoff prevents gravitational singularities from forming.

QUESTION 2. What is the main value of string theory?

“… A problem with the stability of the compact spaces emerges and is fixed using D-brane ideas once again. However, the solution means that string theory proliferates into a vast landscape of vacua. The anthropic principle is introduced as a way of recovering the vacuum state corresponding to our world. This introduces acrimonious debates concerning the scientific status of string theory, which are still ongoing.” — Dean Rickles

page 7 of “A Brief History of String Theory: From Dual Models to M-theory”, 2014

According to the World Bank, the gross world product (i.e. economic value of all goods and services produced) was about 76 trillion U.S. dollars in the year 2013. In 2017, let us assume that science, engineering, and technology are very roughly worth $10 trillion dollars per year. My guess is that string theory with the finite nature hypothesis (based upon the monster group, the 6 pariah groups and 3 copies of the Leech lattice) will make quantum theory slightly easier to understand. Let us suppose that string theory with the finite nature hypothesis makes quantum theory slightly easier to understand and this improvement in understanding leads to an increase of 1/10 of 1 percent in the net productivity of scientists, engineers, and technical specialists. Under the preceding supposition, string theory with the finite nature hypothesis might have an ongoing economic value of roughly $10 billion per year. However, string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis might be of far less economic value.

QUESTION 3. Is Edward Fredkin’s digital philosophy correct?

"There is nothing as 'concrete' in the world as a (computer) bit—it's more concrete than a photon or electron. It's not a 'simulation' of reality; it's not something that 'pretends' to be reality. It is reality." — Edward Fredkin

“Cosmic Computer—New Philosophy to Explain the Universe” by Keay Davidson, San Francisco Chronicle, 1 July 2002

view post as summary

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

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

view entire post

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

According to Steven Weinberg, “Everyone knows that electronic computers have enormously helped the work of science. Some scientists have had a grander vision of the importance of the computer. They expect that it will change our view of science itself, of what it is that scientific theories are supposed to accomplish, and of the kinds of theories that might achieve these goals. ... Wolfram goes on to make a far-reaching conjecture, that almost all automata of any sort that produce complex structures can be emulated by any one of them, so they are all equivalent in Wolfram’s sense, and they are all universal. This doesn’t mean that these automata are computationally equivalent (even in Wolfram’s sense) to systems involving quantities that vary continuously. Only if Wolfram were right that neither space nor time nor anything else is truly continuous (which is a separate issue) would the Turing machine or the rule 110 cellular automaton be computationally equivalent to an analog computer or a quantum computer or a brain or the universe. But even without this far-reaching (and far- out) assumption, Wolfram’s conjecture about the computational equivalence of automata would at least provide a starting point for a theory of any sort of complexity that can be produced by any kind of automaton. The trouble with Wolfram’s conjecture is not only that it has not been proved—a deeper trouble is that it has not even been stated in a form that could be proved. What does Wolfram mean by complex? …”

"Is the Universe a Computer?" (review of "A New Kind of Science"), The New York Review of Books, 24 October 2002

What is a precise mathematical formulation of Wolfram’s concept of complexity? What might be a decisive empirical test of Wolfram’s cosmological automaton? My guess is that at the Planck scale the concepts of energy and spacetime somehow fail — the failure is either in terms of higher mathematics (i.e. mathematical symmetries of the string landscape) or in terms of lower mathematics (i.e. Wolfram’s cosmological automaton). I further speculate that the string landscape depends upon generalizing Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle to include alpha-prime, while Wolfram’s cosmological automaton depends upon modifying Einstein’s field equations to include nonzero dark-matter-compensation-constant, Koide cutoff, and Lestone cutoff. Who might be the world’s greatest living theoretical physicist? The answer might be Witten. Who might be the world’s greatest living mathematician? The answer might be Mochizuki.

According to David Castelvecchi, “The overarching theme of inter-universal geometry, as Fesenko describes it, is that one must look at whole numbers in a different light — leaving addition aside and seeing the multiplication structure as something malleable and deformable. Standard multiplication would then be just one particular case of a family of structures, just as a circle is a special case of an ellipse. Fesenko says that Mochizuki compares himself to the mathematical giant Grothendieck — and it is no immodest claim. “We had mathematics before Mochizuki's work — and now we have mathematics after Mochizuki's work,” Fesenko says.”

"The biggest mystery in mathematics: Shinchi Mochizuki and the impenetrable proof", Nature, 7 October 2015

How might the concepts of energy and spacetime be introduced into algebraic/arithmetic geometry? The answer to the preceding question might involve a unified theory of string theory and Mochizuki’s IUT — deformations of string vacua might have analogues within IUT. I have speculated that if my idea of dark-matter-compensation-constant = square-root((60±10)/4) * 10^-5 is empirically invalid, then MOND-chameleon particles might be the most likely alternative. Because individual gravitons cannot be detected, any suggested modification of Einstein’s field equations might be interpreted in terms of weird particles combined with 100% truth of Einstein’s field equations. I conjecture that there might be a theorem that, under plausible hypotheses, the following three assumptions imply that MOND-chameleon particles exist.

ASSUMPTION 1. Milgrom’s MOND is approximately valid for a wide range of gravitational accelerations.

ASSUMPTION 2. Newton’s 3 laws of motion are (non-relativistically) correct, and supersymmetry needs to be replaced by MOND-compatible-supersymmetry.

ASSUMPTION 3. String theory with MOND-compatible-supersymmetry explains the empirical successes of MOND.

Am I wrong about Fredkin-Wolfram information?

“So: Is Wolfram, as he plainly believes, the new Copernicus? Or is he merely a new Darwin or Einstein? Well, if it's comparisons you are seeking, the one that occurred to me was the astronomer in Dr. Johnson's Rasselas, who, after years of intense, solitary intellection, went quietly nuts.” — John Derbyshire

"Not Quite Copernicus", National Review, 16 September 2002

Is is true that Fredkin-Wolfram information somehow encodes quantum information?

view post as summary

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

view entire post

... Fredkin is one of those people who arouse either affection, admiration, and respect, or dislike and suspicion. The latter reaction has come from a number of professors at MIT, particularly those who put a premium on formal credentials, proper academic conduct, and not sounding like a crackpot. ... Fredkin doubts that his ideas will achieve widespread acceptance anytime soon. He believes that most physicists are so deeply immersed in their kind of mathematics, and so uncomprehending of computation, as to be incapable of grasping the truth. Imagine, he says, that a twentieth-century time traveler visited Italy in the early seventeenth century and tried to reformulate Galileo's ideas in terms of calculus. Although it would be a vastly more powerful language of description than the old one, conveying its importance to the average scientist would be nearly impossible. There are times when Fredkin breaks through the language barrier, but they are few and far between. He can sell one person on one idea, another on another, but nobody seems to get the big picture. It's like a painting of a horse in a meadow, he says. "Everyone else only looks at it with a microscope, and they say, 'Aha, over here I see a little brown pigment. And over here I see a little green pigment.' Okay. Well, I see a horse." — Robert Wright

"Did the Universe Just Happen", Atlantic Monthly, April 1988, pp. 29–44

Digital Philosophy (DP) is a new way of thinking about things work. ... DP is based on two concepts: bits, like the binary digits in a computer, correspond to the most microscopic representation of state information; and the temporal evolution of state is a digital information process similar to what goes on in the circuitry of a computer processor. — Edward Fredkin

“An Introduction to Digital Philosophy”, International Journal of Theoretical Physics, February 2003

How might Fredkin’s ideas on the foundation of physics be tested? I say that my 3 most important ideas are: (1) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology and the main problem with string theory is that string theorists fail to realize that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. (2) The Koide formula is essential for understanding the foundations of physics. (3) Lestone’s theory of virtual cross sections is essential for understanding the foundations of physics. How might the 3 preceding ideas be tested? The answer might be: (1) the Fernández-Rañada-Milgrom effect, (2) the Space Roar Profile Prediction, and (3) the “64 Particles Hypothesis”. What is the explanation for dark matter? My guess is as follows: (A) String theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies that dark-matter-compensation-constant = sqrt((60±10)/4) * 10^–5 and that dark matter indicates that Wolfram’s updating parameter transfers information within the Fredkin-Wolfram network of information. (B) String theory with the infinite nature hypothesis implies that MOND-chameleon particles have variable effective mass depending upon nearby gravitational acceleration and that dark matter is explained entirely by the existence of MOND-chameleon particles.

For the foundations of physics, should the concepts of spacetime and energy be replaced by the concepts of Fredkin distance, Fredkin time, and Fredkin digit transition?

view post as summary

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

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

My guess...

view entire post

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

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

My guess is that Kroupa’s analysis of the dark matter problem is correct. I say that my 3 most important ideas are: (1) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. (2) The Koide formula is essential for understanding the foundations of physics. (3) Lestone’s theory of heuristic cross sections is essential for understanding the foundations of physics. Are my speculations consistent with empirical reality? I suggest that there is a unified theory of mathematics and theoretical physics which consists more-or-less of a unification of Mochizuki’s IUT with the string landscape. Consider 10 basic concepts relevant to theoretical physics: time, distance, space, curvature, torsion, energy, causality, randomness, logic, and information. Fredkin and Wolfram have suggested that quantum field theory and general relativity theory can be explained in terms of the network logic of Fredkin-Wolfram information. My guess is that string theory is essential for carrying out the Fredkin-Wolfram program. Is the introduction of time and energy into algebraic geometry the key to a unified theory of theoretical physics and pure mathematics? I conjecture that string theory with the finite nature hypothesis is empirically valid if and only if Wolfram’s “A New Kind of Science” is one of the greatest books ever written. Google “kroupa milgrom” , “mcgaugh milgrom”, “witten milgrom”, and “einstein 3 criticisms”.

"So, back to the telescope." — Stacy McGaugh, 7 July 2017

Triton Station: A Blog About the Science and Sociology of Cosmology and Dark Matter

view post as summary

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

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

Sikivie, P., 1983....

view entire post

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

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

Sikivie, P., 1983. Experimental tests of the" invisible" axion. Physical Review Letters, 51(16), p.1415.

Could most of the proton charge radius puzzle be explained by unexpected electromagnetic interactions caused by axions?

John P. Lestone has suggested that leptons might be quantum micro black holes according to his theory of virtual cross sections.

Possible Mechanism for the Generation of a Fundamental Unit of Charge (long version), Los Alamos Report LA-UR-17-24901, 16 June 2017

If Lestone is correct, then massive bosons might be (approximately) quantum micro black hole 1-spheres, leptons might be quantum micro black hole 2-spheres, and quarks might be quantum micro black hole 3-spheres.

The electromagnetic effects of axions (1-spheres with virtual cross sections) and leptons (2-spheres with virtual cross sections) might suggest that some form of electromagnetic uncertainty might be approximated by (axion mass)/(electron mass).

Can the proton charge radius puzzle be resolved in terms of electromagnetic effects from axions?

Proton radius puzzle, Wikipedia

Axion, Wikipedia

According to Graf and Steffen, “If the Peccei-Quinn (PQ) mechanism is the explanation of the strong CP problem, axions will pervade the Universe as an extremely weakly interacting light particle species.”

"Thermal axion production in the primordial quark-gluon plasma" by Peter Graf and Frank Daniel Steffen, 2011

According to Derbin et al., “If the axions or other axion-like pseudo scalar particles couple with electrons then they are emitted from Sun by the Compton process and by bremstrahlung …:

“Search for solar axions produced by Compton process and bremsstrahlung using the resonant absorption and axioelectric effect” by A. V. Derbin, et al., 2013

What is the magnitude of the uncertainty in determining the fine structure constant?

Fine structure constant, Wikipedia

Hanneke, Fogwell, and Gabrielse (2008) estimated 1/(fine structure constant) as: 137.035999084(51)

Hanneke, D., Fogwell, S., & Gabrielse, G. (2008). New measurement of the electron magnetic moment and the fine structure constant. Physical Review Letters, 100(12), 120801.

.000000051/137.035999084 = 3.72... * 10^-10

(electron mass) * 3.72 * 10^-10 = 1.901 * 10^-4 eV/c^2

P. J. Mohr, B. N. Taylor, and D. B. Newell (2015) estimated 1/(fine structure constant) as: 137.035999139(31)

”Fine structure constant” in CODATA Internationally recommended 2014 values of the fundamental physical constants, National Institute of Standards and Technology

.000000031/137.035999139 = 2.262... * 10^-10

(electron mass) * 2.262 * 10^-10 = 1.156 * 10^-4 eV/c^2

How might the proton radius puzzle be related to uncertainties in determining the fine structure constant?

In the article “The Rydberg constant and proton size from atomic hydrogen“ Beyer et al. (2017) stated (p. 80), “Line shape distortions caused by quantum interference from distant neighboring atomic resonances have recently come into the focus of the precision spectroscopy community … To the best of our knowledge, this effect has been considered in the analysis of only one of the previous H experiments and was found to be unimportant for that particular experimental scheme … The effect was found to be responsible for discrepancies in the value of the fine structure constant α extracted from various precision spectroscopy experiments in helium … The root of the matter is that natural line shapes of atomic resonances may experience deviations from a perfect Lorentzian when off-resonant transitions are present.”

Beyer, Axel, Lothar Maisenbacher, Arthur Matveev, Randolf Pohl, Ksenia Khabarova, Alexey Grinin, Tobias Lamour et al. "The Rydberg constant and proton size from atomic hydrogen." Science 358, no. 6359 (2017): 79-85.

Are axions a likely source of off-resonant transitions? Could the older experiments for determining the proton charge radius have failed to eliminate axion interactions as a source of inflating the value of the proton radius? Could the 2017 experiment by Beyer et al. be failing to take into account axion interactions? What might happen if experiments for measuring the proton charge radius were performed at 4 different levels of shielding — on the surface, in a slightly deep mine, in a moderately deep mine, and in a very deep mine — to check for possible axion production of off-resonant transitions? By assuming a precise value for the axion mass could the 2017 experiment by Beyer et al. be modified for axion detection?

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

view post as summary

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

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

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

view entire post

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

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

Is my basic theory (i.e. string theory with the finite nature theory) wrong? (Actually, my basic theory is string theory with the finite nature hypothesis and various simplifying assumptions.) Let us assume that string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis is correct. In that case, I would bet in favor of MOND-chameleon particles and a quantum foam theory based on Lestone’s theory of virtual cross sections. Consider some hypotheses which might be a plausible alternative to my basic theory:

(1) The flat spacetime of quantum field theory and the curved spacetime of general relativity theory emerge from a virtual quantum foam spacetime in which massless virtual particles travel at a virtual speed C which is vastly greater than c. The virtual speed C is so large that it appears to be infinite. Virtual quantum foam spacetime is amazingly hot — so hot that ordinary spacetime decomposes into quantum foam. The non-virtual particles are the vastly cooler particles that are confined by gravitational geodesics.

(2) The virtual quantum foam spacetime is 26-dimensional. It has 3 dimensions of ordinary space, 1 dimension of time, 3 dimensions of linear momentum, 3 dimensions of angular momentum, and 16 dimensions of uncertainty. The dimensions of uncertainty arise because 4-dimensional spacetime has 4 dimensions of hbar uncertainty multiplied by 4 dimensions of alpha-prime uncertainty. The quantum foam spacetime is the physical interpretation of 26-dimensional bosonic string theory, which has 25 dimensions of higher-dimensional space and 1 dimension of time.

(3) Micro black holes with masses less than the Planck mass and with charges roughly approximated by the electron charge existed during the very early stages of the Big Bang but then rapidly evaporated down to the fundamental particles of the Standard Model and whatever massive particles might need to be added to the Standard Model.

(4) All of the fundamental particles with mass are quantum micro black holes. Massive bosons are roughly like virtual 1-spheres in quantum foam spacetime. Leptons are roughly like virtual 2-spheres. Quarks are roughly like virtual 3-spheres.

(5) Virtual photons and virtual gravitons can be exchanged between two micro black holes and there is a relevant transmission coefficient for widely separated micro black holes. Exchanges of virtual photons and virtual gravitons in quantum foam spacetime determine the strengths of the electromagnetic and gravitational fields.

(6) The conventional, widely accepted theory of quantum evaporation of micro black holes is wrong because the theory ignores the virtual cross sections of massive virtual particles. If the virtual cross sections went to zero then the conventional theory would be correct.

(7) There is widespread transient violation of conservation of electromagnetic energy but the violation averages out to zero on time scales larger than the Planck time.

(8) The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is 100% correct for directly measured particles but for virtual particles the Heisenberg uncertainly principle needs to be replaced by an (hbar,alpha-prime) uncertainty principle which takes into account Lestone’s theory of virtual cross sections.

(9) After quantum averaging, Einstein’s field equations are 100% correct but the -1/2 in the standard form of Einstein’s field equations is apparently replaced by -1/2 + MOND-chameleon-fake-function, where this function is caused by the presence of MOND-chameleon particles. These hypothetical MOND-chameleon particles have variable effective mass depending on nearby gravitational acceleration. The MOND-chameleon particles are bosons which form a Bose-Einstein condensate. This Bose-Einstein condensate forms an insulating barrier between the cooler non-virtual particles and the vastly hotter virtual particles.

view post as summary

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

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

view entire post

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

John P. Lestone of Los Alamos National Laboratory has suggested a theory of quantum micro black holes that might explain the value of the fine structure constant. He suggested 7 principles, the first 4 of which are as follows: “Properties used to calculate the fine structure constant for my imaginary particles (1) My particles have a very high temperature. (2) Despite having a high temperature my imaginary particles can not change their rest mass upon the emission of electromagnetic energy. Using known physics my imaginary particles (if isolated) can not emit any “real” photons. (3) However, I consider the possibility that my imaginary particles can emit and absorb unphysical L=0 “virtual” photons via the time-energy uncertainty principle. (4) The emission and absorption is controlled by statistical arguments involving their assumed “classical” temperature and possibly other effective temperatures. …”

“Possible path for the calculation of the fine structure constant”, Los Alamos Report LA-UR-16-22121, 4 April 2016, page 10

How might Lestone’s theory be related to the idea that quantum information can be explained in terms of Fredkin-Wolfram information? My guess is that if string theory with the finite nature hypothesis is empirically valid, then it is necessary that string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis should “almost” work.

Dreiner, Grab, and Stefaniak considered the possibility of a supersymmetric extension of the standard model with a baryon-triality symmetry with a right-handed scalar electron (selectron) or scalar muon (smuon) as the lightest supersymmetric particle.

"Discovery Potential of Selectron or Smuon as the Lightest Supersymmetric Particle at the LHC" by H. K. Dreiner, S. Grab, and T. Stefaniak, 2011

Consider the following 6 hypotheses:

(1) After quantum averaging, Einstein’s field equations are 100% correct. The empirical successes of Milgrom’s MOND are explained by MOND-chameleon particles which have variable effective mass depending upon nearby gravitational acceleration. (2) For every particle in the Standard Model, its superpartner is a MOND-chameleon particle. (3) The right-handed selectron is the lightest supersymmetric particle and explains most of the mass-energy of dark matter particles. (4) The bosons that are not MOND-chameleon particles are the photon, the graviton, the 8 distinct gluons, the Z-boson, the W+ boson, the W- boson, the Higgs boson, the axion, and the inflaton. The string vibrations of these 16 distinct types of bosons determine a 25-dimensional space with 1 dimension of time. 26-dimensional bosonic string theory allows for an 10-dimensional general relativity model with 16 dimensions of virtual bosons. (5) The universe undergoes an amazingly fast cycle of heating and cooling. A cool phase of the universe lasts for one Planck time interval at the end of which the universe becomes amazingly hot and instantaneously undergoes a hot phase. The temporal duration of the hot phase appears to be instantaneous because its time duration is (Planck time interval) multiplied by ((little c)/(big C)). Big C is the speed of light in 26-dimensional bosonic spacetime. The hot phase is instantaneous de-compactification and re-compactification of 4-dimensional spacetime with respect to the 26-dimensional spacetime of bosonic string theory. At the end of a hot phase, the universe undergoes another cool phase. (6) The existence of the cycle of cool phases and hot phases might provide a basis for Lestone’s principles (1) through (4) in a bosonic string theoretical 26-dimensional spacetime, which consists of amazingly hot virtual particles. Thus, Lestone’s principles might be explained in a higher-dimensional spacetime of virtual particles — the de-compactified spacetime might be thought of as a quantum foam that is so hot that ordinary spacetime breaks down.

view post as summary