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

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

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

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

Previous Contests

**Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest**

*December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020*

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss • winners

**What Is “Fundamental”**

*October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018*

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

read/discuss • winners

**Wandering Towards a Goal**

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

*December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017*

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

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

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

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

**How Should Humanity Steer the Future?**

*January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014*

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

read/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

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

read/discuss • winners

**Questioning the Foundations**

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

*May 24 - August 31, 2012*

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

read/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

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

read/discuss • winners

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

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

Previous Contests

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

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

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

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

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**David Brown**: *on* 7/25/20 at 12:27pm UTC, wrote According to Kroupa, dark matter particles are unlikely to exist. I agree...

**David Brown**: *on* 7/25/20 at 12:19pm UTC, wrote According to Denef, Douglas, Greene, & Zukowski, “By defining a cosmology...

**sherman jenkins**: *on* 6/18/20 at 6:50am UTC, wrote Consider that the Higgs field and Dark Matter are one and the same.

**David Brown**: *on* 5/25/20 at 22:00pm UTC, wrote The prediction of "what dark matter is" seems to me to be a concept of...

**Lachlan Cresswell**: *on* 5/25/20 at 13:53pm UTC, wrote Hi David, I am still reading various essays and I came across some further...

**David Brown**: *on* 5/16/20 at 8:54am UTC, wrote To what extent are the foundations of physics undecidable? How is string...

**David Brown**: *on* 5/9/20 at 11:43am UTC, wrote The question of whether "DM's gravity is the same as normal matter's...

**Lachlan Cresswell**: *on* 5/9/20 at 2:41am UTC, wrote Hi David, The thread reply wasn't working so I will post here instead. I...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Steve Dufourny**: "ps the clifford algebras also are important in my theory, the aim being to..."
*in* Is Causality Fundamental?

**Steve Dufourny**: "what I find relevant is that he try to unify the electromagnetism and this..."
*in* Is Causality Fundamental?

**Steve Dufourny**: "Hi Mr Snowdon, I beleive indeed that there is a link with the rotations of..."
*in* The Nature of Time

**Jim Snowdon**: "Hi Steve, We are inclined to assume that time exists, as the..."
*in* The Nature of Time

**Steve Dufourny**: "I repeat this simple general intuitive idea, what are your thoughts? .... ..."
*in* Undecidability,...

**Steve Dufourny**: "You know Tejinder, I don t want to destroy the works of strings theorists,..."
*in* Undecidability,...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**Lockdown Lab Life**

Grounded physicists are exploring the use of online and virtual-reality conferencing, and AI-controlled experiments, to maintain social distancing. Post-pandemic, these positive innovations could make science more accessible and environmentally-friendly.

**Is Causality Fundamental?**

Untangling how the human perception of cause-and-effect might arise from quantum physics, may help us understand the limits and the potential of AI.

**Building Agency in the Biology Lab**

Physicists are using optogenetics techniques to make a rudimentary agent, from cellular components, which can convert measurements into actions using light.

**Think Quantum to Build Better AI**

Investigating how quantum memory storage could aid machine learning and how quantum interactions with the environment may have played a role in evolution.

**Outside the Box**

A proposed quantum set-up that could predict your game-playing strategy resurrects Newcomb’s classic quiz show paradox.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Grounded physicists are exploring the use of online and virtual-reality conferencing, and AI-controlled experiments, to maintain social distancing. Post-pandemic, these positive innovations could make science more accessible and environmentally-friendly.

Untangling how the human perception of cause-and-effect might arise from quantum physics, may help us understand the limits and the potential of AI.

Physicists are using optogenetics techniques to make a rudimentary agent, from cellular components, which can convert measurements into actions using light.

Investigating how quantum memory storage could aid machine learning and how quantum interactions with the environment may have played a role in evolution.

A proposed quantum set-up that could predict your game-playing strategy resurrects Newcomb’s classic quiz show paradox.

FQXi FORUM

August 4, 2020

CATEGORY:
Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest (2019-2020)
[back]

TOPIC: Gödel versus Wolfram on Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability, plus Bohr versus Einstein on Uncertainty by David Brown [refresh]

TOPIC: Gödel versus Wolfram on Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability, plus Bohr versus Einstein on Uncertainty by David Brown [refresh]

This essay raises questions concerning whether nature is infinite or finite, and how infinity is related to the physical importance of Gödel’s 1st and 2nd incompleteness theorems, Church’s theorem (also proved by Alan Turing in 1937), and the currently accepted formulation of quantum field theory.

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

Note: This Essay PDF was replaced on 2020-03-27 06:34:00 UTC.

Errors in original essay: In the last paragraph of the essay, I misquoted David Lindley: "Reluctantly, Einstein conceded the technical correctness of the system Bohr and Einstein laid out" needs to be replaced by "Reluctantly, Einstein conceded the technical correctness of the system Bohr and Heisenberg laid out". In the section "WHAT IS DECIDABLE? WHAT IS COMPUTABLE? WHAT IS PREDICTABLE?" there is a typo in my quote from Francis Crick, "two area" should be "two areas".

Is string theory essential for understanding uncertainty? I say yes. Is is possible that string theory is "not even wrong" as alleged by Woit? I say no. I say that string theory is the mathematical way to geometrize Feynman diagrams so as to derive gravitons and general relativity theory. However, Motl thinks Woti is 100% wrong about string theory, but I think that Woit is about 80% wrong on string theory and about 20% correct on string theory. I agree with Motl that Green, Schwarz, and Witten are in the same ballpark as Tomonaga, Schwinger, and Feynman — however, Motl believes in string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis and I believe in string theory with the finite nature hypothesis.

As indicated in my essay,(as of January 2020) Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg and most string theorists believe that string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis implies that Milgrom's MOND is wrong and that dark-matter-compensation-constant = 0. Google "dark matter compensation constant". My guess is that string theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies dark-matter-compensation-constant has the value (3.9±.5) * 10^-5 and MOND is empirically valid. See Professor Giuseppe Pipino's 2019 article "Evidences for Varying Speed of Light with Time". Is the fundamental basis of nature an Einstein-Riofrio duality principle? In terms of general relativity theory, it seems to me that Riofrio, Sanejouand, and Pipino are wrong unless the boundary of the multiverse is steadily losing gravitational energy into the interior of the multiverse — my guess is that string theory with the finite nature hypothesis requires 3 modifications to Einstein's field equations (after quantum averaging). It seems plausible that string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis implies supersymmetry, while string theory with the finite nature implies no supersymmetry. Google "fredkin-wolfram information".

report post as inappropriate

As indicated in my essay,(as of January 2020) Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg and most string theorists believe that string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis implies that Milgrom's MOND is wrong and that dark-matter-compensation-constant = 0. Google "dark matter compensation constant". My guess is that string theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies dark-matter-compensation-constant has the value (3.9±.5) * 10^-5 and MOND is empirically valid. See Professor Giuseppe Pipino's 2019 article "Evidences for Varying Speed of Light with Time". Is the fundamental basis of nature an Einstein-Riofrio duality principle? In terms of general relativity theory, it seems to me that Riofrio, Sanejouand, and Pipino are wrong unless the boundary of the multiverse is steadily losing gravitational energy into the interior of the multiverse — my guess is that string theory with the finite nature hypothesis requires 3 modifications to Einstein's field equations (after quantum averaging). It seems plausible that string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis implies supersymmetry, while string theory with the finite nature implies no supersymmetry. Google "fredkin-wolfram information".

How might uncertainty be related to the inflaton field and string theory? According to Guth, Kaiser, and Nomura, “… the final stage of inflation could plausibly have begun by tunneling from some other metastable state.”

Guth, Alan H., David I. Kaiser, and Yasunori Nomura. "Inflationary paradigm after Planck 2013." Physics Letters B 733 (2014): 112-119.

”Inflationary paradigm after Planck 2013”, by Guth, Kaiser & Nomura, arXiv preprint

I say that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology — on the basis of overwhelming empirical evidence. In terms of string theory, it seems to me that there are 2 basic possibilities for explaining MOND: (1) String theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies that Einstein’s equivalence principle is slightly wrong, there is an uncertainty principle for graviton spin, and the Riofrio-Sanejouand cosmological model defines the inflaton field. (2) String theory with the infinite nature hypothesis implies that Einstein’s equivalence principle is 100% correct (after quantum averaging), gravitons are spin-2 bosons without a graviton uncertainty principle, and gravitons have one or more D-brane charges that somehow allow MOND to be empirically valid (in the non-relativistic approximation).

It seems that quantum field theory has a problem at the Planck scale involving calculations with Feynman diagrams — my guess is that string theory is the only plausible way to deal with the problem.

According to Stetz, “The finite energy portion of divergent electron-positron pair production diagrams … should contribute to the mass-energy density of the universe.”

”A Very Short Introduction to Quantum Field Theory” by A. W. Stetz, 21 November 2007 (See page 6 of pdf.)

post approved

Guth, Alan H., David I. Kaiser, and Yasunori Nomura. "Inflationary paradigm after Planck 2013." Physics Letters B 733 (2014): 112-119.

”Inflationary paradigm after Planck 2013”, by Guth, Kaiser & Nomura, arXiv preprint

I say that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology — on the basis of overwhelming empirical evidence. In terms of string theory, it seems to me that there are 2 basic possibilities for explaining MOND: (1) String theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies that Einstein’s equivalence principle is slightly wrong, there is an uncertainty principle for graviton spin, and the Riofrio-Sanejouand cosmological model defines the inflaton field. (2) String theory with the infinite nature hypothesis implies that Einstein’s equivalence principle is 100% correct (after quantum averaging), gravitons are spin-2 bosons without a graviton uncertainty principle, and gravitons have one or more D-brane charges that somehow allow MOND to be empirically valid (in the non-relativistic approximation).

It seems that quantum field theory has a problem at the Planck scale involving calculations with Feynman diagrams — my guess is that string theory is the only plausible way to deal with the problem.

According to Stetz, “The finite energy portion of divergent electron-positron pair production diagrams … should contribute to the mass-energy density of the universe.”

”A Very Short Introduction to Quantum Field Theory” by A. W. Stetz, 21 November 2007 (See page 6 of pdf.)

post approved

Hello, here are my thoughts about these strings. Can we affirm that these strings, Branes, fields Waves are the pure essence of our geometries, topologies, Matter and properties in this space time ? no, we cannot affirm and even philosphically speaking, we cannot affirm that we have a 1D main field oscillating permiting to these tsrings t this planck scale to create our physicality. In fact I...

view entire post

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

"... I doubt really that we have an infinite energy ... We have probably a deeper logic to all this puzzle ..." Is nature finite and digital? Stephen Wolfram wrote, "I’ve been thinking about the physics of space and time for a little more than 40 years now. At the beginning, as a young theoretical physicist, I mostly just assumed Einstein’s whole mathematical setup of Special and General Relativity—and got on with my work in quantum field theory, cosmology, etc. on that basis.But about 35 years ago, partly inspired by my experiences in creating technology, I began to think more deeply about fundamental issues in theoretical science—and started on my long journey to go beyond traditional mathematical equations and instead use computation and programs as basic models in science. Quite soon I made the basic discovery that even very simple programs can show immensely complex behavior—and over the years I discovered that all sorts of systems could finally be understood in terms of these kinds of programs.Encouraged by this success, I then began to wonder if perhaps the things I’d found might be relevant to that ultimate of scientific questions: the fundamental theory of physics."

"What Is Spacetime, Really?" Stephen Wolfram, Writings, December 2, 2015

When I say "String vibrations are confined to 3 copies of the Leech lattice" , what precisely do I mean? The precise answer would require an entirely successful realization of Wolfram's program — first write down 4 or 5 simple rules and then prove empirically that Wolfram is correct.

"What Is Spacetime, Really?" Stephen Wolfram, Writings, December 2, 2015

When I say "String vibrations are confined to 3 copies of the Leech lattice" , what precisely do I mean? The precise answer would require an entirely successful realization of Wolfram's program — first write down 4 or 5 simple rules and then prove empirically that Wolfram is correct.

Is Milgrom’s MOND relevant to questions of undecidability and non-computability? I suggest that MOND is empirically valid and relevant to every aspect of human philosophy. However, MOND (as of the beginning of 2020 C.E.) lacks a relativistic extension (with thorough validation).

In section “9. Relativistic theories” of “MOND—a pedagogical review”, Milgrom wrote, “We still want a relativistic extension of MOND. Such a theory is needed for conceptual completion of the MOND idea. But, it is doubly needed because we already have observed relativistic phenomena that show mass discrepancies, and we must ascertain that there too the culprit is not dark matter but modified dynamics.”

Milgrom, Mordehai. "MOND—a pedagogical review." arXiv preprint astro-ph/0112069 (2001).

MOND—a pedagogical review

My speculative theory concerning string theory with the finite nature hypothesis depends upon 7 foundational components: (1) string theory, (2) MOND, (3) atomic time versus astronomical time according to Fernández-Rañada & Tiemblo-Ramos, (4) the Koide formula, (5) Lestone's heuristic theory, (6) the ideas of Riofrio, Sanejouand, and Pipino, & (7) the speculative ideas of Fredkin and Wolfram. I am confident about string theory and MOND, but not so confident about the other 5 components. Is it possible that there are MOND-chameleon particles that have variable effective mass depending upon nearby gravitational acceleration? What is relativistic MOND? What is the ultimate meaning of the empirical successes of MOND?

report post as inappropriate

In section “9. Relativistic theories” of “MOND—a pedagogical review”, Milgrom wrote, “We still want a relativistic extension of MOND. Such a theory is needed for conceptual completion of the MOND idea. But, it is doubly needed because we already have observed relativistic phenomena that show mass discrepancies, and we must ascertain that there too the culprit is not dark matter but modified dynamics.”

Milgrom, Mordehai. "MOND—a pedagogical review." arXiv preprint astro-ph/0112069 (2001).

MOND—a pedagogical review

My speculative theory concerning string theory with the finite nature hypothesis depends upon 7 foundational components: (1) string theory, (2) MOND, (3) atomic time versus astronomical time according to Fernández-Rañada & Tiemblo-Ramos, (4) the Koide formula, (5) Lestone's heuristic theory, (6) the ideas of Riofrio, Sanejouand, and Pipino, & (7) the speculative ideas of Fredkin and Wolfram. I am confident about string theory and MOND, but not so confident about the other 5 components. Is it possible that there are MOND-chameleon particles that have variable effective mass depending upon nearby gravitational acceleration? What is relativistic MOND? What is the ultimate meaning of the empirical successes of MOND?

Hi ,

I have thought a lot about these MONDs , I have read and studied many pappers about these modifications of our Newtonian mechanics and the opposite reasoning considering this Dark Matter. But after a deeper analyses, philosophicaL, it seems that a cold Dark matter can be very relevant to balance our actual classical physics at this quantum scale and this coosmological scale, I doubt...

view entire post

I have thought a lot about these MONDs , I have read and studied many pappers about these modifications of our Newtonian mechanics and the opposite reasoning considering this Dark Matter. But after a deeper analyses, philosophicaL, it seems that a cold Dark matter can be very relevant to balance our actual classical physics at this quantum scale and this coosmological scale, I doubt...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Sorry I write too quickly without rereading, I told 3D spheres, not 3S spheres lol and I have made some errors in English also, I am french speaking, I cannot solve, we cannot re edit and correct. sorry But I beleive that you can understand my general reasoning.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

"Maybe the strings, the photons and its correlated philosophy have created a kind of prison for the thinkers ..." There is the possibility that string theory is somewhat wrong or, perhaps, fundamentally wrong.

Freeman Dyson wrote, "What philosophical conclusions should we draw from the abstract style of the superstring theory? We might conclude, as Sir James Jeans concluded long ago, that the Great Architect of the Universe now begins to appear as a Pure Mathematician, and that if we work hard enough at mathematics we shall be able to read his mind. Or we might conclude that our pursuit of abstractions is leading us far away from those parts of the creation which are most interesting from a human point of view.**It is too early yet to come to conclusions.**"

Superstring theory, Wikiquote

Henri Poincaré wrote, "La pensée ne doit jamais se soumettre, ni à un dogme, ni à un parti, ni à une passion, ni à un intérêt, ni à une idée préconçue, ni à quoi que ce soit, si ce n'est aux faits eux-mêmes, parce que, pour elle, se soumettre, ce serait cesser d'être."

Henri Poincaré, Wikiquote

Freeman Dyson wrote, "What philosophical conclusions should we draw from the abstract style of the superstring theory? We might conclude, as Sir James Jeans concluded long ago, that the Great Architect of the Universe now begins to appear as a Pure Mathematician, and that if we work hard enough at mathematics we shall be able to read his mind. Or we might conclude that our pursuit of abstractions is leading us far away from those parts of the creation which are most interesting from a human point of view.

Superstring theory, Wikiquote

Henri Poincaré wrote, "La pensée ne doit jamais se soumettre, ni à un dogme, ni à un parti, ni à une passion, ni à un intérêt, ni à une idée préconçue, ni à quoi que ce soit, si ce n'est aux faits eux-mêmes, parce que, pour elle, se soumettre, ce serait cesser d'être."

Henri Poincaré, Wikiquote

Does the fundamental nature of undecidability, uncomputability, and unpredictability depend upon string theory? Why is string theory likely to be correct? According to Michio Kaku, “The number 24 appearing in Ramanujan's function is also the origin of the miraculous cancellations occurring in string theory ... each of the 24 modes in the Ramanujan function corresponds to a physical vibration of a string. Whenever the string executes its complex motions in space-time by splitting and recombining, a large number of highly sophisticated mathematical identities must be satisfied. These are precisely the mathematical identities discovered by Ramanujan. ... The string vibrates in ten dimensions because it requires ... generalized Ramanujan functions in order to remain self-consistent.”

String theory, Wikiquote

Let the symbol “ ↪ “ denote mathematical embedding. Classical field theory ↪ quantum field theory (QFT). My guess is that there are 4 fundamental possibilities for physical law: (1) QFT ↪ string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis and without further generalization. (2) QFT ↪ string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis and with further generalization. (3) QFT ↪ string theory with the finite nature hypothesis and without further generalization. (4) string theory with the finite nature hypothesis and with further generalization. Is it possible to rule out any of the 4 preceding possibilities? Can supersymmetry be empirically refuted? Each superpartner might have such a long wavelength that it is undetectable.

String theory, Wikiquote

Let the symbol “ ↪ “ denote mathematical embedding. Classical field theory ↪ quantum field theory (QFT). My guess is that there are 4 fundamental possibilities for physical law: (1) QFT ↪ string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis and without further generalization. (2) QFT ↪ string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis and with further generalization. (3) QFT ↪ string theory with the finite nature hypothesis and without further generalization. (4) string theory with the finite nature hypothesis and with further generalization. Is it possible to rule out any of the 4 preceding possibilities? Can supersymmetry be empirically refuted? Each superpartner might have such a long wavelength that it is undetectable.

In terms of quantum gravity, does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle need to be replaced by an uncertainty principle involving the string constant alpha-prime? See page 29 of the following.

"Reflections on the fate of spacetime" by Edward Witten, Physics Today, April 1996

"Reflections on the fate of spacetime" by Edward Witten, Physics Today, April 1996

It seems that quantum field theory has a problem at the Planck scale involving calculations with Feynman diagrams — my guess is that string theory is the only plausible way to deal with the problem.

According to Stetz, “The finite energy portion of divergent electron-positron pair production diagrams … should contribute to the mass-energy density of the universe.”

”A Very Short Introduction to Quantum Field Theory” by A. W. Stetz, 21 November 2007 (See page 6 of pdf.)

post approved

According to Stetz, “The finite energy portion of divergent electron-positron pair production diagrams … should contribute to the mass-energy density of the universe.”

”A Very Short Introduction to Quantum Field Theory” by A. W. Stetz, 21 November 2007 (See page 6 of pdf.)

post approved

To what extent does uncertainty play a fundamental role in physics and philosophy? According to Callender and Huggett, "In recent years it has sometimes been difficult to distinguish between articles in quantum gravity journals and articles in philosophy journals.”

Callender, Craig, and Nick Huggett, eds. Physics meets philosophy at the Planck scale: Contemporary theories in quantum...

view entire post

Callender, Craig, and Nick Huggett, eds. Physics meets philosophy at the Planck scale: Contemporary theories in quantum...

view entire post

According to Callender and Huggett, "In recent years it has sometimes been difficult to distinguish between articles in quantum gravity journals and articles in philosophy journals.”

Callender, Craig, and Nick Huggett, eds. Physics meets philosophy at the Planck scale: Contemporary theories in quantum gravity. Cambridge University Press, 2001, page 1

Do D-branes occur in nature?...

view entire post

Callender, Craig, and Nick Huggett, eds. Physics meets philosophy at the Planck scale: Contemporary theories in quantum gravity. Cambridge University Press, 2001, page 1

Do D-branes occur in nature?...

view entire post

post approved

How might D-branes be related to uncertainty? Do D-branes occur in nature?

D-brane, Wikipedia

How might uncertainty be related to the inflaton field and string theory? According to Guth, Kaiser, and Nomura, “… the final stage of inflation could plausibly have begun by tunneling from some other metastable state.”

Guth, Alan H., David I. Kaiser, and Yasunori Nomura....

view entire post

D-brane, Wikipedia

How might uncertainty be related to the inflaton field and string theory? According to Guth, Kaiser, and Nomura, “… the final stage of inflation could plausibly have begun by tunneling from some other metastable state.”

Guth, Alan H., David I. Kaiser, and Yasunori Nomura....

view entire post

post approved

Is there an Einstein-Riofrio duality principle that is related to uncertainty and string theory? Is string theory empirically valid? I suggest that string theory is empirically valid — beyond a reasonable doubt. String theory with the infinite nature hypothesis implies dark-matter-compensation-constant = 0 and supersymmetry is part of nature.

”Why string theory implies supersymmetry” by Motl, 24 June 2010

I have suggested that string theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^–5 and supersymmetry does not occur in nature. If string theory with the finite nature hypothesis works, then how might a model of string theory with the finite nature hypothesis be embedded into a model of string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis? Assume that gravitons have one or more D-brane charges. Make the same assumption for gravitinos and inflatons. The 3 previous assumptions might allow string theorists to make adjustments to the cosmological constant, the gravitational field, and the inflaton field (in order to approximately model MOND and the Riofrio-Sanejouand model). According to Polchinski, if “*j* is a world-sheet weight (1,0) current” then “String states carry the world-sheet charge associated with the current *j* …”

”Dirichlet-Branes and Ramond-Ramond Charges” by Joseph Polchinski, 1995, arXiv, page 1

”Why string theory implies supersymmetry” by Motl, 24 June 2010

I have suggested that string theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^–5 and supersymmetry does not occur in nature. If string theory with the finite nature hypothesis works, then how might a model of string theory with the finite nature hypothesis be embedded into a model of string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis? Assume that gravitons have one or more D-brane charges. Make the same assumption for gravitinos and inflatons. The 3 previous assumptions might allow string theorists to make adjustments to the cosmological constant, the gravitational field, and the inflaton field (in order to approximately model MOND and the Riofrio-Sanejouand model). According to Polchinski, if “

”Dirichlet-Branes and Ramond-Ramond Charges” by Joseph Polchinski, 1995, arXiv, page 1

How uncertain is the empirical validity of MOND? Admittedly, my speculations about string theory might be wrong. However it seems to me that Milgrom's MOND is (non-relativistically) empirically valid — beyond a reasonable doubt. Kroupa is a skeptical scientist and he has thoroughly investigated possible MOND failures — so far, Kroupa has not found any clear MOND counter-evidence. According to Milgrom, "MOND is a paradigm that contends to account for the mass discrepancies in the Universe without invoking 'dark' components, such as 'dark matter' and 'dark energy'. It does so by supplanting Newtonian dynamics and General Relativity, departing from them at very low accelerations."

"MOND vs. dark matter in light of historic parallels" by Mordehai Milgrom, 2019, arXiv

Does the empirical validity of MOND necessarily entail a modification of Einstein's General Relativity? My guess is that MOND is actually compatible with string theory (as currently understood by the majority of string theorists) provided that D-brane charges are assigned to gravitons and gravitinos in various MOND-compatible ways (there is considerable wiggle-room because MOND is not 100% precisely defined).

"MOND vs. dark matter in light of historic parallels" by Mordehai Milgrom, 2019, arXiv

Does the empirical validity of MOND necessarily entail a modification of Einstein's General Relativity? My guess is that MOND is actually compatible with string theory (as currently understood by the majority of string theorists) provided that D-brane charges are assigned to gravitons and gravitinos in various MOND-compatible ways (there is considerable wiggle-room because MOND is not 100% precisely defined).

Dear David Brown

In your essay you showed your high erudition and you can deservedly be called a professor. You know so much about modern physics that I envy you. However, to answer your question: “WHERE DO WE COME FROM? WHAT ARE WE? WHERE ARE ”, one needs to look at modern physics through the prism of the identity of space and matter of Descartes and, separating physical space from geometric, and to understand forever that space moves as it is matter. I invite you to discuss some aspects

The neo-Cartesian generalization of modern physics, which I set out in my essay: “The transformation of uncertainty into certainty. The relationship of the Lorentz factor with the probability density of states. And more from a new Cartesian generalization of modern physics. by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich »

report post as inappropriate

In your essay you showed your high erudition and you can deservedly be called a professor. You know so much about modern physics that I envy you. However, to answer your question: “WHERE DO WE COME FROM? WHAT ARE WE? WHERE ARE ”, one needs to look at modern physics through the prism of the identity of space and matter of Descartes and, separating physical space from geometric, and to understand forever that space moves as it is matter. I invite you to discuss some aspects

The neo-Cartesian generalization of modern physics, which I set out in my essay: “The transformation of uncertainty into certainty. The relationship of the Lorentz factor with the probability density of states. And more from a new Cartesian generalization of modern physics. by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich »

report post as inappropriate

"In new Cartesian physics any movement is seen as the result of rotors of space." To me the idea seems somewhat similar to loop quantum gravity.

"Atoms of Space and Time" by Lee Smolin, 2004

Let us imagine that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle can be explained by some type of Semyonovich certainty. In that case, I think there might be a theory of double-loop quantum gravity in which each loop (in the Smolin theory) has a Semyonovich rotor-display forming a double loop structure which can introduce certainty into the Smolin theory of loop quantum gravity.

"Atoms of Space and Time" by Lee Smolin, 2004

Let us imagine that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle can be explained by some type of Semyonovich certainty. In that case, I think there might be a theory of double-loop quantum gravity in which each loop (in the Smolin theory) has a Semyonovich rotor-display forming a double loop structure which can introduce certainty into the Smolin theory of loop quantum gravity.

Dear David Brown, I appreciate you for trying to include the neocartesian generalization of modern physics in your knowledge system and comparing it with the Lee Smolin loop quantum theory of gravity.

It should be noted here that in neocartesian physics, it is not length that is quantized, but the construction of the length by mass. The continuity of length arises from the Heisenberg inequality, which indicates that it is impossible to tear out a single point from space, since this requires an infinitely large momentum. So the principle of uncertainty passes into the principle of definiteness of points in space and makes them irrational points that complement the set of rational points to the continuum.

I wish you a deeper understanding of the neocartesian generalization of modern physics and apply your knowledge to deepen it.

Sincerely, Dzhechko Semenovich.

report post as inappropriate

It should be noted here that in neocartesian physics, it is not length that is quantized, but the construction of the length by mass. The continuity of length arises from the Heisenberg inequality, which indicates that it is impossible to tear out a single point from space, since this requires an infinitely large momentum. So the principle of uncertainty passes into the principle of definiteness of points in space and makes them irrational points that complement the set of rational points to the continuum.

I wish you a deeper understanding of the neocartesian generalization of modern physics and apply your knowledge to deepen it.

Sincerely, Dzhechko Semenovich.

report post as inappropriate

Can Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle be explained by a principle of multiverse causality? Are my speculations concerning the foundations of physics correct? Perhaps not. My guess is that string theory is empirically valid, either in the form of string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis or in the form of string theory with the finite nature hypothesis.

According to Crick, “A...

view entire post

According to Crick, “A...

view entire post

Can we certain about supersymmetry (SUSY)?

”Supersymmetry”, Wikipedia

According to John Ellis, "We are never going to know that SUSY is not there. ... I and my grandchildren will have passed on, humans could still be exploring physics way below the Planck scale, and string theorists could still be cool with that."

”The Higgs, supersymmetry and all that”, 10 January 2020, Cern Courier, interview of John Ellis by Matthew Chalmers

In the interview, Ellis mentions neither MOND nor Milgrom. Here is my opinion:

According to Witten, "... the orbit of a string in spacetime is two-dimensional (over the reals) and should be regarded as a complex Riemann surface. Physics without strings is roughly analogous to mathematics without complex numbers."

”Magic, Mystery, and Matrix" by Edward Witten, Notices of the AMS, volume 45, number 9, quote on page 1127

I say that Witten's statement is correct — strings are the geometric completions of quantum probability amplitudes. How do we know that string theory is empirically valid? String theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies Milgrom's MOND, and there is no other mathematically plausible way to justify MOND. What good is SUSY? You need SUSY to do the "Einstein" part of the Einstein-Riofrio duality principle. Google "riofrio sanejouand". Use SUSY to embed the finite model of string theory into various infinite models of string theory — this allows the expanding universe in which the observers are not shrinking to be (approximately) mathematically mapped into the non-expanding universe in which the observers are shrinking.

”Supersymmetry”, Wikipedia

According to John Ellis, "We are never going to know that SUSY is not there. ... I and my grandchildren will have passed on, humans could still be exploring physics way below the Planck scale, and string theorists could still be cool with that."

”The Higgs, supersymmetry and all that”, 10 January 2020, Cern Courier, interview of John Ellis by Matthew Chalmers

In the interview, Ellis mentions neither MOND nor Milgrom. Here is my opinion:

According to Witten, "... the orbit of a string in spacetime is two-dimensional (over the reals) and should be regarded as a complex Riemann surface. Physics without strings is roughly analogous to mathematics without complex numbers."

”Magic, Mystery, and Matrix" by Edward Witten, Notices of the AMS, volume 45, number 9, quote on page 1127

I say that Witten's statement is correct — strings are the geometric completions of quantum probability amplitudes. How do we know that string theory is empirically valid? String theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies Milgrom's MOND, and there is no other mathematically plausible way to justify MOND. What good is SUSY? You need SUSY to do the "Einstein" part of the Einstein-Riofrio duality principle. Google "riofrio sanejouand". Use SUSY to embed the finite model of string theory into various infinite models of string theory — this allows the expanding universe in which the observers are not shrinking to be (approximately) mathematically mapped into the non-expanding universe in which the observers are shrinking.

How is uncertainty related to Bell’s theorem and string theory?

Consider Bell’s theorem:

”Bell’s theorem”, Wikipedia

I have conjectured that string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis implies that Bell’s theorem is empirically valid, but string theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies that Bell’s theorem is empirically irrefutable but based on...

view entire post

Consider Bell’s theorem:

”Bell’s theorem”, Wikipedia

I have conjectured that string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis implies that Bell’s theorem is empirically valid, but string theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies that Bell’s theorem is empirically irrefutable but based on...

view entire post

Hello David,

I have downloaded your paper, and enjoyed reading your conversation with yourself. Some of your talking points make a lot of sense. There is some tension between naturalness in ST, and what we observe astrophysically. I think Vafa and Steinhardt (with Obied and Agrawal) are on to something, where we should be looking for cosmological clues to how the landscape collapses into real-world possibilities. My thought is that most of the stable vacua are in the pre-decoupling phase of cosmology, and that the universe we reside in appears headed for a cold dark end, so it can't be exactly stable. There is gross time-asymmetry on the cosmological scale that conventional interpretations of ST cannot reckon with. Perhaps you could respond to that.

Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

I have downloaded your paper, and enjoyed reading your conversation with yourself. Some of your talking points make a lot of sense. There is some tension between naturalness in ST, and what we observe astrophysically. I think Vafa and Steinhardt (with Obied and Agrawal) are on to something, where we should be looking for cosmological clues to how the landscape collapses into real-world possibilities. My thought is that most of the stable vacua are in the pre-decoupling phase of cosmology, and that the universe we reside in appears headed for a cold dark end, so it can't be exactly stable. There is gross time-asymmetry on the cosmological scale that conventional interpretations of ST cannot reckon with. Perhaps you could respond to that.

Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Also be advised...

It is incorrect that String Theory is the only consistent context in which MOND can arise. While DGP and Cascading gravity did arise in a String Theory context; any theory with a higher-dimensional origin or precursor provides a similar benefit or effect, given the right initial assumptions. I have seen presentations by several non-ST researchers, claiming to reproduce or mimic MOND.

But I think de Rham's idea of long-distance degravitation is worthy of study. I see it as likely that the dimension of spacetime has changed over time, as you will read in my essay when it posts, and lately I'm working with a bimetric hypothesis where dimensionality is undefined at the outset (in the Planck domain), with both lower and upper limits, and then settling on a single value by the current era.

More later,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

It is incorrect that String Theory is the only consistent context in which MOND can arise. While DGP and Cascading gravity did arise in a String Theory context; any theory with a higher-dimensional origin or precursor provides a similar benefit or effect, given the right initial assumptions. I have seen presentations by several non-ST researchers, claiming to reproduce or mimic MOND.

But I think de Rham's idea of long-distance degravitation is worthy of study. I see it as likely that the dimension of spacetime has changed over time, as you will read in my essay when it posts, and lately I'm working with a bimetric hypothesis where dimensionality is undefined at the outset (in the Planck domain), with both lower and upper limits, and then settling on a single value by the current era.

More later,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Of course,

Looking to Cosmology for clues might not be needed, if the Mandelbrot-G2 conjecture can be proved. Briefly; I'll summarize. It is conjectured that there is a non-trivial connection between Cartan's rolling ball model for G2 and the shape of the Mandelbrot Set, when extended into higher dimensions. Since Kricker and Joshi showed that the Mandelbrot Set helps map non-associative regions in the octonionic quadratic, and Giulio Tiozzo proved the monotonicity of entropy in M; it should be a slam dunk once that conjecture is proved, to a method for collapsing the String Theory landscape.

Just a thought...

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Looking to Cosmology for clues might not be needed, if the Mandelbrot-G2 conjecture can be proved. Briefly; I'll summarize. It is conjectured that there is a non-trivial connection between Cartan's rolling ball model for G2 and the shape of the Mandelbrot Set, when extended into higher dimensions. Since Kricker and Joshi showed that the Mandelbrot Set helps map non-associative regions in the octonionic quadratic, and Giulio Tiozzo proved the monotonicity of entropy in M; it should be a slam dunk once that conjecture is proved, to a method for collapsing the String Theory landscape.

Just a thought...

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

"It is incorrect that String Theory is the only consistent context in which MOND can arise." There might be many consistent theories that imply MOND, but my guess is that string theory is the only plausible possibility for quantum gravity.

According to John H. Schwarz, "... string theory requires supersymmetry ..."

"Introduction to Superstring Theory" by John H. Schwarz, arXiv, 2000

My guess is that string theory with the infinite nature requires supersymmetry and dark-matter-compensations-constant = 0, but string theory with the finite nature hypothesis requires dark-matter-compensation-constant = (approximately) (3.9±.5) * 10^-5 and supersymmetry does not occur in nature.

If string theory with the finite nature hypothesis (as I envision it) is wrong, then it seems to me that the only plausible candidate for a new paradigm in the foundations of physics is string theory with supersymmetry and some form of the string landscape. Clearly, Milgrom thinks that I am wrong about string theory with the finite nature hypothesis — if he thought that I am correct then he would immediately publicize the concept of the dark-matter-compensation-constant. So far as I know, everyone (except me) believes that the 4 ultra-precise gyroscopes malfunctioned as alleged by the Gravity Probe B science team. Milgrom has presented a brane-world approach to MOND.

"MOND from a brane-world picture" by Mordehai Milgrom, arXiv, 2018

I think that Milgrom's thinking about string theory is wrong. I am 100% convinced that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology, but I have severe doubts about him as a string theorist. If the Gravity Probe B science team is correct about the 4 ultra-precise gyroscopes, then I think that everyone should ignore all of my speculations about string theory — I leave it to the string theorists to find the explanation for the empirical successes of MOND.

According to John H. Schwarz, "... string theory requires supersymmetry ..."

"Introduction to Superstring Theory" by John H. Schwarz, arXiv, 2000

My guess is that string theory with the infinite nature requires supersymmetry and dark-matter-compensations-constant = 0, but string theory with the finite nature hypothesis requires dark-matter-compensation-constant = (approximately) (3.9±.5) * 10^-5 and supersymmetry does not occur in nature.

If string theory with the finite nature hypothesis (as I envision it) is wrong, then it seems to me that the only plausible candidate for a new paradigm in the foundations of physics is string theory with supersymmetry and some form of the string landscape. Clearly, Milgrom thinks that I am wrong about string theory with the finite nature hypothesis — if he thought that I am correct then he would immediately publicize the concept of the dark-matter-compensation-constant. So far as I know, everyone (except me) believes that the 4 ultra-precise gyroscopes malfunctioned as alleged by the Gravity Probe B science team. Milgrom has presented a brane-world approach to MOND.

"MOND from a brane-world picture" by Mordehai Milgrom, arXiv, 2018

I think that Milgrom's thinking about string theory is wrong. I am 100% convinced that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology, but I have severe doubts about him as a string theorist. If the Gravity Probe B science team is correct about the 4 ultra-precise gyroscopes, then I think that everyone should ignore all of my speculations about string theory — I leave it to the string theorists to find the explanation for the empirical successes of MOND.

I followed your link 'fredkin milgrom'...

I have encountered similar ideas in a different context. I had a lovely conversation with Gerard 't Hooft at FFP10 back in 2009, regarding his theory of quantum gravity based on cellular automata, which may be of interest. I brought up "Rechnender Raum" and the atoms of space idea, and then asked him "what does the calculating?" his theory. His reply was very interesting, because he said that Planck bits or atoms of space are not necessary, because the laws of nature do the calculating for us.

He also made some comments about the difficulty with obtaining Lorentz invariance in any CA based formulation. I was absolutely amazed, however, when he came back to this in his lecture at FFP11 where he devoted 4 slides to the discussion of the desirability of Lorentz invariance in a theory and the basis for the complication that makes this endeavor a difficult thing to do. I have thought about octonionic CAs, but I need a little more familiarity with the theory of permutahedra and associahedra to crack that nut.

More later,

Jonathan

p.s. - I left another comment above, now hidden. - jjd

report post as inappropriate

I have encountered similar ideas in a different context. I had a lovely conversation with Gerard 't Hooft at FFP10 back in 2009, regarding his theory of quantum gravity based on cellular automata, which may be of interest. I brought up "Rechnender Raum" and the atoms of space idea, and then asked him "what does the calculating?" his theory. His reply was very interesting, because he said that Planck bits or atoms of space are not necessary, because the laws of nature do the calculating for us.

He also made some comments about the difficulty with obtaining Lorentz invariance in any CA based formulation. I was absolutely amazed, however, when he came back to this in his lecture at FFP11 where he devoted 4 slides to the discussion of the desirability of Lorentz invariance in a theory and the basis for the complication that makes this endeavor a difficult thing to do. I have thought about octonionic CAs, but I need a little more familiarity with the theory of permutahedra and associahedra to crack that nut.

More later,

Jonathan

p.s. - I left another comment above, now hidden. - jjd

report post as inappropriate

"... the difficulty with obtaining Lorentz invariance in any CA based formulation ..." My guess is that, at the Planck scale, Lorentz invariance fails, along with the concepts of spacetime, energy, and quantum information. At the present time, my thinking is as follow: (1) String theory is the mathematics of quantum gravity — beyond a reasonable doubt. (2) Green, Schwarz, and Witten are in the same ballpark as Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga — beyond a reasonable doubt. (3) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology — beyond a reasonable doubt. Am I overconfident about string theory? Am I overconfident about (non-relativistic) MOND?

Consider the following article:

"Free Will in the Theory of Everything" by Gerard 't Hooft, 2017, arxIv

't Hooft's 2017 article seems to reveal no understanding about the importance of Milgrom's MOND. Here is what I think: There are 3 levels of physical reality: Level 1. Classical field theory. Level 2. Quantum field theory. 3. String theory with the infinite nature hypothesis, or string theory with the finite nature hypothesis. String theory with the infinite nature hypothesis, together with supersymmetry and D-branes, can provide mathematical models for any plausible, or implausible, physics. String theory with Wolfram's cosmological automaton predicts dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^–5 and the empirical validity of the Riofrio-Sanejouand cosmological model. There is an important synergy between string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis and string theory with the finite nature hypothesis because of mathematical embeddings and physical intuition about strings.

Consider the following article:

"Free Will in the Theory of Everything" by Gerard 't Hooft, 2017, arxIv

't Hooft's 2017 article seems to reveal no understanding about the importance of Milgrom's MOND. Here is what I think: There are 3 levels of physical reality: Level 1. Classical field theory. Level 2. Quantum field theory. 3. String theory with the infinite nature hypothesis, or string theory with the finite nature hypothesis. String theory with the infinite nature hypothesis, together with supersymmetry and D-branes, can provide mathematical models for any plausible, or implausible, physics. String theory with Wolfram's cosmological automaton predicts dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^–5 and the empirical validity of the Riofrio-Sanejouand cosmological model. There is an important synergy between string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis and string theory with the finite nature hypothesis because of mathematical embeddings and physical intuition about strings.

I'll entertain that last possibility for now...

And I do hold your idols in high regard. Not sure they have an inside track, however. I just read a comment on Sabine's blog about both 't Hooft and Wolfram's view being a non-starter because both space and time are discrete. Go figure. I'll keep an open mind and consider this explanation along with other possibilities. I found some other interesting articles in the Bekenstein memorial volume the Milgrom article is from. I'm not ruling out some possibilities yet, but explanation is needed if they fly. Let's say I have some favored ideas of my own too.

More later,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

And I do hold your idols in high regard. Not sure they have an inside track, however. I just read a comment on Sabine's blog about both 't Hooft and Wolfram's view being a non-starter because both space and time are discrete. Go figure. I'll keep an open mind and consider this explanation along with other possibilities. I found some other interesting articles in the Bekenstein memorial volume the Milgrom article is from. I'm not ruling out some possibilities yet, but explanation is needed if they fly. Let's say I have some favored ideas of my own too.

More later,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

My impression is that, as of the beginning of February 2020 C.E., both 't Hooft and Wolfram fail to realize that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology — 't Hooft and Wolfram have some of the correct concepts but they have not appreciated the ideas of Milgrom, Riofrio, Sanejouand, and Pipino. MOND is data-based — according to Kroupa, non-relativistic MOND is remarkably successful. The Riofrio-Sanejouand cosmological model is data-based. Riofrio published her model in 2004. By studying the same data, Sanejouand independently arrived at the model.

Sanejouand, Yves-Henri. "A simple varying-speed-of-light hypothesis is enough for explaining high-redshift supernovae data." arXiv preprint astro-ph/0509582 (2005)

What do I mean by the term "Einstein-Riofrio duality principle"?

In string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis, the assumption is that, after quantum averaging, Einstein's field equations are 100% correct. Can the ΛCDM model be empirically refuted?

Lambda-CDM model, Wikipedia

By using supersymmetry, D-branes, and D-brane charges, my guess is that mathematical models of dark matter particles and the inflaton field can be cleverly adjusted to match any plausible, or implausible, physics.

My guess is that the string theorists have discovered the "Einstein" part of Einstein-Riofrio duality. In the "Riofrio" part of Enstein-Riofrio duality, there are 3 modifications to Einstein's field equations: cutoff for minimum wavelength, cutoff for maximum wavelength, and

dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^–5. Furthermore, the inflaton field is redefined: Guth's inflaton field is replaced by a inflaton field that is defined in terms of the Riofrio-Sanejourand model.

Sanejouand, Yves-Henri. "A simple varying-speed-of-light hypothesis is enough for explaining high-redshift supernovae data." arXiv preprint astro-ph/0509582 (2005)

What do I mean by the term "Einstein-Riofrio duality principle"?

In string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis, the assumption is that, after quantum averaging, Einstein's field equations are 100% correct. Can the ΛCDM model be empirically refuted?

Lambda-CDM model, Wikipedia

By using supersymmetry, D-branes, and D-brane charges, my guess is that mathematical models of dark matter particles and the inflaton field can be cleverly adjusted to match any plausible, or implausible, physics.

My guess is that the string theorists have discovered the "Einstein" part of Einstein-Riofrio duality. In the "Riofrio" part of Enstein-Riofrio duality, there are 3 modifications to Einstein's field equations: cutoff for minimum wavelength, cutoff for maximum wavelength, and

dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^–5. Furthermore, the inflaton field is redefined: Guth's inflaton field is replaced by a inflaton field that is defined in terms of the Riofrio-Sanejourand model.

Just another thought...

What if the speed of light is a measure of the universe's mass? I we imagine there was a matter-free regime in the radiation dominated early universe; perhaps this translates into a higher light speed. By taking Einstein's venerable equivalence equation, and flipping terms to solve for c, We obtain c^2 = E/m, then let m --> 0 and discover c^2 is unbounded in a universe devoid of mass.

I interpret this to mean the speed of light is infinite in the 2-d regime near the Planck scale as postulated by many Quantum Gravity theories. But it also might reproduce exactly the effect Sanejouand was talking about - assuming more matter congeals out of energy over time. My essay focuses on a mechanism to do exactly that. Perhaps we are more on the same page than you imagine.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

What if the speed of light is a measure of the universe's mass? I we imagine there was a matter-free regime in the radiation dominated early universe; perhaps this translates into a higher light speed. By taking Einstein's venerable equivalence equation, and flipping terms to solve for c, We obtain c^2 = E/m, then let m --> 0 and discover c^2 is unbounded in a universe devoid of mass.

I interpret this to mean the speed of light is infinite in the 2-d regime near the Planck scale as postulated by many Quantum Gravity theories. But it also might reproduce exactly the effect Sanejouand was talking about - assuming more matter congeals out of energy over time. My essay focuses on a mechanism to do exactly that. Perhaps we are more on the same page than you imagine.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

"What if the speed of light is a measure of the universe's mass?" The preceding question, according to my speculation, is the essential question in deciding between string theory with the infinite nature hypotheis (dark matter particles) versus string theory with the finite nature hypothesis (no dark matter particles). If dark-matter-compensation-constant = zero, then my guess is that the Riofrio-Sanejouand model is wrong. If the Riofrio-Sanejouand model is empirically valid, then my guess is that, during each Planck time interval, gravitational energy is transferred from the boundary of the multiverse into the interior of the universe — implying that the mass-energy of our universe is related to the average speed of light in intergalactic space.

According to Peebles, "The evidence for the dark matter (DM) of the hot big bang cosmology is about as good as it gets in natural science."

Peebles, P. James E. "Dark matter." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, no. 40 (2015): 12246-12248.

My understanding of the evidence is that Kroupa is correct about dark matter particles and Peebles is wrong — but perhaps dark matter particles with weird MONDian properties might be discovered.

According to Peebles, "The evidence for the dark matter (DM) of the hot big bang cosmology is about as good as it gets in natural science."

Peebles, P. James E. "Dark matter." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, no. 40 (2015): 12246-12248.

My understanding of the evidence is that Kroupa is correct about dark matter particles and Peebles is wrong — but perhaps dark matter particles with weird MONDian properties might be discovered.

My guess is that string theory is empirically irrefutable. According to Schwarz, “… we explored whether it is possible to interpret the massless spin 2 state in the closed-string spectrum as a graviton. This required carrying out an analysis analogous to the earlier one of Neveu and Scherk. This time one needed to decide whether the interactions of the massless spin 2 particle in string theory...

view entire post

view entire post

Does string theory with the finite nature hypothesis provide a new paradigm for understanding uncertainty?

Louis Marmet founded "A Cosmology Group" (ACG) to publicize problems with the Lambda-CDM model.

ACG Position (with empirical evidence against the Lambda-CDM model)

Louis Marmet, York University

In string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis, the string vibrations are not synchronized among alternate universes — thus allowing a chaos of incomprehensibility in terms of physical experiments. In string theory with Wolfram's cosmological automation, there are 2 highly testable predictions:

(1) relativistic MOND (i.e. dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^–5) and

(2) the Riofrio cosmological model (which allows the replacement of Guth's inflaton field by a new inflaton field defined in terms of the Riofrio cosmological model).

Can supersymmetry be empirically refuted? No, because all of the superpartners might have wavelengths that are too short or too long for detection. Is supersymmetry useful in theoretical physics? Yes, supersymmetry is needed for the Einstein-Riofrio duality principle. In string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis, we assume that, after quantum averaging, Einstein's field equations are 100% correct. In string theory with the finite nature hypothesis, we assume that, after quantum averaging, Einstein's field equations need 3 corrections. Put D-brane supercharges on gravitons, gravitinos, inflatons, and inflatinos. This allows an embedding of a model of string theory with the finite nature hypothesis into a model of string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis.

Louis Marmet founded "A Cosmology Group" (ACG) to publicize problems with the Lambda-CDM model.

ACG Position (with empirical evidence against the Lambda-CDM model)

Louis Marmet, York University

In string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis, the string vibrations are not synchronized among alternate universes — thus allowing a chaos of incomprehensibility in terms of physical experiments. In string theory with Wolfram's cosmological automation, there are 2 highly testable predictions:

(1) relativistic MOND (i.e. dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^–5) and

(2) the Riofrio cosmological model (which allows the replacement of Guth's inflaton field by a new inflaton field defined in terms of the Riofrio cosmological model).

Can supersymmetry be empirically refuted? No, because all of the superpartners might have wavelengths that are too short or too long for detection. Is supersymmetry useful in theoretical physics? Yes, supersymmetry is needed for the Einstein-Riofrio duality principle. In string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis, we assume that, after quantum averaging, Einstein's field equations are 100% correct. In string theory with the finite nature hypothesis, we assume that, after quantum averaging, Einstein's field equations need 3 corrections. Put D-brane supercharges on gravitons, gravitinos, inflatons, and inflatinos. This allows an embedding of a model of string theory with the finite nature hypothesis into a model of string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis.

Marmet is a very nice man...

He spoke at one of the first Physics conferences I attended CCC-2 (2nd Crisis in Cosmology Conf.) and Louis was inspirational. Many of the objections raised in his stated position linked above still stand. Possibly of interest would be the diagram from his proceedings paper which is reproduced on its cover, detailing the redshift predictions for various (10 different) models 'Angular distance a s a function of redshift.' I think I still have an electronic copy of that volume on one of my working computers, and I can forward his paper with that diagram if you like.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

He spoke at one of the first Physics conferences I attended CCC-2 (2nd Crisis in Cosmology Conf.) and Louis was inspirational. Many of the objections raised in his stated position linked above still stand. Possibly of interest would be the diagram from his proceedings paper which is reproduced on its cover, detailing the redshift predictions for various (10 different) models 'Angular distance a s a function of redshift.' I think I still have an electronic copy of that volume on one of my working computers, and I can forward his paper with that diagram if you like.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for the offer, but it seems that the volume is already available online:

"2nd Crisis in Cosmology Conference, CCC-2" edited by Frank Potter, 2009

"2nd Crisis in Cosmology Conference, CCC-2" edited by Frank Potter, 2009

Is uncertainty infinite or finite? Is nature infinite or finite?

According to Tegmark, " ... infinity is an extremely convenient approximation for which we haven't discovered convenient alternatives."

"Infinity Is a Beautiful Concept — And It's Ruining Physics" by Mag Tegmark, Discover Magazine, 2015

I have suggested 3 modifications to Einstein's field equations:

"Einstein's field equations: 3 criticisms", 2017

One modification attempts to refute the hypothesis that energy-density continuously approaches zero. Another modification attempts to refute the hypothesis that energy-density can be infinitely large. The modification dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^–5 attempts to provide a model for relativistic MOND. The hypothesis that nature is finite seems to be in conflict with the hypothesis that, after quantum averaging, Einstein's field equations are 100% correct.

According to Tegmark, " ... infinity is an extremely convenient approximation for which we haven't discovered convenient alternatives."

"Infinity Is a Beautiful Concept — And It's Ruining Physics" by Mag Tegmark, Discover Magazine, 2015

I have suggested 3 modifications to Einstein's field equations:

"Einstein's field equations: 3 criticisms", 2017

One modification attempts to refute the hypothesis that energy-density continuously approaches zero. Another modification attempts to refute the hypothesis that energy-density can be infinitely large. The modification dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^–5 attempts to provide a model for relativistic MOND. The hypothesis that nature is finite seems to be in conflict with the hypothesis that, after quantum averaging, Einstein's field equations are 100% correct.

According to Kroupa, the Lambda-CDM model is now ruled out. Is there considerable uncertainty about dark matter particles? (According to my speculations, the Riofrio model need a Koide cutoff and a Lestone cutoff.)

According to contemporary scientific thought, the diameter of the observable universe is about 93 billion light years. However, if the Riofrio cosmological model is correct, the...

view entire post

According to contemporary scientific thought, the diameter of the observable universe is about 93 billion light years. However, if the Riofrio cosmological model is correct, the...

view entire post

In the previous post, in the 3rd sentence, replace "need" by "needs". In Hypothesis 3, assume that the conversion of ordinary matter to dark matter occurs with the dark matter having negligible mass-energy; in other words, ALL of the dark matter has negligible mass-energy.

Is the Lambda-CDM model empirically valid?

Sanejouand, Yves-Henri'"Has the density of sources of gamma-ray bursts been constant over the last ten billion years?" arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.05303 (2018)

My guess is that the the tired light hypothesis has been ruled out by empirical evidence, but the tired light hypothesis and string theory with the finite nature hypothesis share several predictions that contradict the Lambda-CDM model.

Is the Lambda-CDM model empirically valid?

Sanejouand, Yves-Henri'"Has the density of sources of gamma-ray bursts been constant over the last ten billion years?" arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.05303 (2018)

My guess is that the the tired light hypothesis has been ruled out by empirical evidence, but the tired light hypothesis and string theory with the finite nature hypothesis share several predictions that contradict the Lambda-CDM model.

How uncertain is the empirical validity of the Copenhagen Interpretation? My guess is that the Copenhagen interpretation is the correct “psychological” interpretation of string theory with the finite nature hypothesis. Consider 5 questions: (1) What is an observer? (2) What is an observation or a measurement made by an observer? (3) What is a measuring apparatus? (4) What, if anything, determines quantum probability distributions? (5) How are the empirical successes of MOND related to the foundations of physics?

According to Famaey and McGaugh,

"Either (i) there is a vast amount of unseen mass in some novel form—dark matter— or (ii) the data indicate a breakdown of our understanding of dynamics on the relevant scales, or (iii) both."

*Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND): Observational Phenomenology and Relativistic Extensions*, Living Reviews in Relativity, volume 15, 7 September 2012

According to McGaugh,, “One of the frustrating things about ΛCDM and MOND as competing scientific paradigms is that where one is elegant and predictive, the other tends to be mute. This makes a straightforward comparison difficult.”

The MOND Pages, ΛCDM and MOND compared

According to Famaey and McGaugh,

"Either (i) there is a vast amount of unseen mass in some novel form—dark matter— or (ii) the data indicate a breakdown of our understanding of dynamics on the relevant scales, or (iii) both."

According to McGaugh,, “One of the frustrating things about ΛCDM and MOND as competing scientific paradigms is that where one is elegant and predictive, the other tends to be mute. This makes a straightforward comparison difficult.”

The MOND Pages, ΛCDM and MOND compared

What is the uncertainty concerning the economic value of string theory?

I have conjectured that by the year 2025 C.E. the yearly economic value of string theory will be at least 50 billion U.S. dollars per year — because string theory with the finite nature hypothesis will make it easier for scientists and engineers to understand quantum field theory. Is something wrong with Big Bang cosmology?

Site Web de Louis Marmet

Does supersymmetry occur in nature? Are string vibrations confined to 3 copies of the Leech lattice? Which is empirically valid — Big Bang or Wolfram’s Reset?

Viewpoint 1. Electrons travel through spacetime. Electrons are wave-like when they are not measured. Electrons are particle-like when they are measured.

Viewpoint 2. Electrons and spacetime are approximations generated by Wolfram’s cosmological automaton. Electrons do not travel through spacetime. Measurement is a natural process that separates the boundary of the multiverse from the interior of the multiverse. The multiverse is mathematically isomorphic to a 72-dimensional holographic, digital computer. An electron is an approximate pattern of Fredkin-Wolfram information, and the electron’s pattern is computationally and holographically propagated through the interior of the multiverse. The electron approximately consists of discontinuous displays of Fredkin-Wolfram information that are psychologically merged together in the minds of those electromagnetic fields called the “minds of physicists”. How might Viewpoint 2 be tested?

Prediction 1: dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^–5 .

Prediction 2: The Riofrio-Sanejouand cosmological model is empirically valid, i.e., the radius of our universe is a constant, and the speed of light in a perfect vacuum steadily decreases as our universe ages.

I have conjectured that by the year 2025 C.E. the yearly economic value of string theory will be at least 50 billion U.S. dollars per year — because string theory with the finite nature hypothesis will make it easier for scientists and engineers to understand quantum field theory. Is something wrong with Big Bang cosmology?

Site Web de Louis Marmet

Does supersymmetry occur in nature? Are string vibrations confined to 3 copies of the Leech lattice? Which is empirically valid — Big Bang or Wolfram’s Reset?

Viewpoint 1. Electrons travel through spacetime. Electrons are wave-like when they are not measured. Electrons are particle-like when they are measured.

Viewpoint 2. Electrons and spacetime are approximations generated by Wolfram’s cosmological automaton. Electrons do not travel through spacetime. Measurement is a natural process that separates the boundary of the multiverse from the interior of the multiverse. The multiverse is mathematically isomorphic to a 72-dimensional holographic, digital computer. An electron is an approximate pattern of Fredkin-Wolfram information, and the electron’s pattern is computationally and holographically propagated through the interior of the multiverse. The electron approximately consists of discontinuous displays of Fredkin-Wolfram information that are psychologically merged together in the minds of those electromagnetic fields called the “minds of physicists”. How might Viewpoint 2 be tested?

Prediction 1: dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^–5 .

Prediction 2: The Riofrio-Sanejouand cosmological model is empirically valid, i.e., the radius of our universe is a constant, and the speed of light in a perfect vacuum steadily decreases as our universe ages.

I make 3 fundamental claims: (1) String theory is definitely the mathematical way to geometrize Feynman diagrams so as to derive Einstein’s field equations — the only question is whether nature is based upon string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis or string theory with the finite nature hypothesis. (2) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology — on the basis of overwhelming empirical evidence. (3) If Riofrio, Sanejouand, and Pipino are not geniuses then my basic theory is wrong. Does quantum information reduce to Fredkin-Wolfram information? Is quantum field theory unsatisfactory in that it theoretically allows many types of fanciful quantum fields?

According to Steven Weinberg,

“Quantum mechanics is not itself a dynamical theory. It is an empty stage. You have to add the actors: You have to specify the space of configurations, an infinite-dimensional complex space, and the dynamical rules for how the state vector rotates in this space as time passes.”

’’Towards the Final Laws of Physics: The 1986 Memorial Lecture" by Steven Weinberg', published in ''Elementary Particles and the Laws of Physics: The 1986 Dirac Memorial Lectures'', 1987, Cambridge University Press; 1999 pbk reprint, p. 72 (Feynman gave the other lecture.)

Is it impossible to empirically disconfirm string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis?

Argument 1. Put D-brane supercharges on gravitons and gravitinos. This allows arbitrary manipulation of the graviton field.

Argument 2. Put D-brane supercharges on inflatons and inflatinos. This allows arbitrary manipulation of the inflaton field.

Argument 3. By creating more and more complicated arguments, superpartners can always be assumed to have wavelengths that are too short or too long for detection

.

According to Steven Weinberg,

“Quantum mechanics is not itself a dynamical theory. It is an empty stage. You have to add the actors: You have to specify the space of configurations, an infinite-dimensional complex space, and the dynamical rules for how the state vector rotates in this space as time passes.”

’’Towards the Final Laws of Physics: The 1986 Memorial Lecture" by Steven Weinberg', published in ''Elementary Particles and the Laws of Physics: The 1986 Dirac Memorial Lectures'', 1987, Cambridge University Press; 1999 pbk reprint, p. 72 (Feynman gave the other lecture.)

Is it impossible to empirically disconfirm string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis?

Argument 1. Put D-brane supercharges on gravitons and gravitinos. This allows arbitrary manipulation of the graviton field.

Argument 2. Put D-brane supercharges on inflatons and inflatinos. This allows arbitrary manipulation of the inflaton field.

Argument 3. By creating more and more complicated arguments, superpartners can always be assumed to have wavelengths that are too short or too long for detection

.

Dear David Brown,

A general concern regarding String Theory: How can a theory that is limited to one slice of reality, say the Planck scale, determine and define the actions at the atomic scale (it should explain this), at the molecular scale (it can do some of this), at the macro-molecular and protein level, at the cellular level, at the ligament and tissue level, at the organ level, at the human body level, at the meteorological and planetary climate level, at the solar, black hole and solar system level, at the galactic level, at the galaxy cluster level?

How can any theory limited to just one slice of this continuum of scale expect to describe and determine the actions and interactions at all these levels?

When we touch our hand to a pane of glass, and visually see our hand touching the glass and feel our hand touch the glass, should we believe a theory that says “those experiences are not real, the only reality is what occurs at the atomic or particle level where your hand and the glass are mostly open space”. Or should we require our theories to explain the Planck level, the cellular level, the surface of our skin and the glass surface level all together?

We are measuring the universe in thin slices, like measuring only in the plane of Flatland when the universe is three-dimensional.

The concept of MOND should indicate we are not looking at the universe correctly, rather than being the solution.

We are barking up the wrong tree, using mathematical and measuring tools limited to only slices of this continuum of scale. We need to be able to measure and devise equations across scale, from the atomic to our macro level to the galactic level and back down.

We need new tools.

Don

report post as inappropriate

A general concern regarding String Theory: How can a theory that is limited to one slice of reality, say the Planck scale, determine and define the actions at the atomic scale (it should explain this), at the molecular scale (it can do some of this), at the macro-molecular and protein level, at the cellular level, at the ligament and tissue level, at the organ level, at the human body level, at the meteorological and planetary climate level, at the solar, black hole and solar system level, at the galactic level, at the galaxy cluster level?

How can any theory limited to just one slice of this continuum of scale expect to describe and determine the actions and interactions at all these levels?

When we touch our hand to a pane of glass, and visually see our hand touching the glass and feel our hand touch the glass, should we believe a theory that says “those experiences are not real, the only reality is what occurs at the atomic or particle level where your hand and the glass are mostly open space”. Or should we require our theories to explain the Planck level, the cellular level, the surface of our skin and the glass surface level all together?

We are measuring the universe in thin slices, like measuring only in the plane of Flatland when the universe is three-dimensional.

The concept of MOND should indicate we are not looking at the universe correctly, rather than being the solution.

We are barking up the wrong tree, using mathematical and measuring tools limited to only slices of this continuum of scale. We need to be able to measure and devise equations across scale, from the atomic to our macro level to the galactic level and back down.

We need new tools.

Don

report post as inappropriate

According to Wikipedia, "A Feynman diagram is a graphical representation of a perturbative contribution to the transition amplitude or correlation function of a quantum mechanical or statistical field theory." If we assign a positive number to each internal line in a Feynman diagram so that each internal line is associated with a gravitational energy-density, then there is a mathematical problem of how to formulate a quantum-gravitational action that yields an averaging procedure. It seems to me that the answer is the Nambu-Goto string action (or something mathematically equivalent to it). Study the following:

TASI Lectures on Perturbative String Theories" by Hirosi Ooguri and Zheng Yin, 1996, arXiv.org

In string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis, there are string vibrations at the Planck scale — and there is the string landscape at the cosmological scale. In string theory with the finite nature hypothesis, the string vibrations are entirely virtual and never emerge from Wolfram's cosmological automaton — and there are a huge, but finite, number of alternate universes on the boundary of the multiverse (which is approximately generated by Wolfram's cosmological automation using a network of Fredkin-Wolfram information.)

My guess is that the string theorists are not "looking at the universe correctly" because they have underestimated (or have remained ignorant of) Milgrom, McGaugh, Kroupa, Scarpa, Sanders, Koide, Lestone, Riofrio, Sanejouand, Pipino,, and several other physicists and astronomers. I think that the problem is now to find Wolfram's conjectured 4 or 5 simple rules — and to show that the rules are empirically valid.

TASI Lectures on Perturbative String Theories" by Hirosi Ooguri and Zheng Yin, 1996, arXiv.org

In string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis, there are string vibrations at the Planck scale — and there is the string landscape at the cosmological scale. In string theory with the finite nature hypothesis, the string vibrations are entirely virtual and never emerge from Wolfram's cosmological automaton — and there are a huge, but finite, number of alternate universes on the boundary of the multiverse (which is approximately generated by Wolfram's cosmological automation using a network of Fredkin-Wolfram information.)

My guess is that the string theorists are not "looking at the universe correctly" because they have underestimated (or have remained ignorant of) Milgrom, McGaugh, Kroupa, Scarpa, Sanders, Koide, Lestone, Riofrio, Sanejouand, Pipino,, and several other physicists and astronomers. I think that the problem is now to find Wolfram's conjectured 4 or 5 simple rules — and to show that the rules are empirically valid.

How does a point particle cross scale? The question needs to address objects and actions at all scales in between the largest and smallest - and not just the extremes or black holes.

Statistics and probability are one-way tools, only able to move from the smaller to the larger. Are our tools biasing our theories? A bouncing beach ball is best described at the scale of the beach ball. The actions at this level impact what occurs at the molecular level, were we might want to describe the scuffing of the ball surface. How do any theories at only one scale perform both (plus what happens at in between scales)? If the only tools we have go from smaller to larger, will we even be able to model action or movement in the reverse direction?

MOND is an attempt to connect the large with the small, however do we even have appropriate (mathematical) tools to address this situation?

Basing theories on geometric points, smallest spaces or point particles does not give any confidence that such a theory can traverse the scales from smallest to largest.

We seem to be developing theories as if we live in Flatland, only able to measure in one plane at a time. However, we perceive the three dimensional scale aspects of reality. Our theories do not match our wide scale-continuum perceptions and the limitations of our mathematical tools might be the reason why.

Don

report post as inappropriate

Statistics and probability are one-way tools, only able to move from the smaller to the larger. Are our tools biasing our theories? A bouncing beach ball is best described at the scale of the beach ball. The actions at this level impact what occurs at the molecular level, were we might want to describe the scuffing of the ball surface. How do any theories at only one scale perform both (plus what happens at in between scales)? If the only tools we have go from smaller to larger, will we even be able to model action or movement in the reverse direction?

MOND is an attempt to connect the large with the small, however do we even have appropriate (mathematical) tools to address this situation?

Basing theories on geometric points, smallest spaces or point particles does not give any confidence that such a theory can traverse the scales from smallest to largest.

We seem to be developing theories as if we live in Flatland, only able to measure in one plane at a time. However, we perceive the three dimensional scale aspects of reality. Our theories do not match our wide scale-continuum perceptions and the limitations of our mathematical tools might be the reason why.

Don

report post as inappropriate

"How does a point particle cross scale?" According to string theory, something is wrong with the concept of "point particle". Feynman explains the basic problems with the concept of a "point particle" — quantum field theory does not entirely resolve the problems.

According to Feynman, "First, we compute the energy of a charged particle. Suppose we take a simple model of an electron in...

view entire post

According to Feynman, "First, we compute the energy of a charged particle. Suppose we take a simple model of an electron in...

view entire post

How uncertain is string theory? How might string theory be related to money? Consider 2 dicta: (A) Watson’s Dictum: DNA makes RNA makes protein. (B) Brown’s Dictum: Money drives technology drives science. Is science more important than money? I have speculated that string theory with the finite nature hypothesis will make quantum field theory somewhat easier to understand — am I wrong? There...

view entire post

view entire post

According to Milgrom, "... cosmology and local MOND will be understood as two aspects of the same construct ...".

Milgrom, Mordehai. "The*a*_{0} - cosmology connection in MOND." arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.09729 (2020), page 8

The string theorists (as of early 2020 C.E.) reject MOND — they believe that nature is infinite and furthermore dark-matter-compensation-constant = 0. Are the string theorists correct? My guess is that the Fredkin-Wolfram viewpoint leads to string-vibrational synchronization among alternate universes, but string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis leads to supersymmetry, the string landscape, and lack of string-vibrational synchronization among alternate universes.

Consider 4 speculative hypotheses: (1) The Koide formula suggests there is a maximum wavelength in the physical universe and there is a Koide cutoff that needs to be introduced into Einstein’s field equations. (2) Lestone’s theory of virtual cross sections might suggest that a Lestone cutoff needs to be introduced into Einstein’s field equations. (3) The empirical successes of Milgrom’s MOND might suggest dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^–5 . (4) The Riofrio-Sanejouand cosmological model is (approximately) empirically valid if and only if string theory with the finite nature hypothesis is empirically valid if and only if there exist 4 of 5 simple rules (as conjectured by Wolfram) implying empirically satisfactory approximations to quantum field theory and general relativity theory if and only if the monster group and the 6 pariah groups can be used effectively in string theory with the finite nature hypothesis.

Milgrom, Mordehai. "The

The string theorists (as of early 2020 C.E.) reject MOND — they believe that nature is infinite and furthermore dark-matter-compensation-constant = 0. Are the string theorists correct? My guess is that the Fredkin-Wolfram viewpoint leads to string-vibrational synchronization among alternate universes, but string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis leads to supersymmetry, the string landscape, and lack of string-vibrational synchronization among alternate universes.

Consider 4 speculative hypotheses: (1) The Koide formula suggests there is a maximum wavelength in the physical universe and there is a Koide cutoff that needs to be introduced into Einstein’s field equations. (2) Lestone’s theory of virtual cross sections might suggest that a Lestone cutoff needs to be introduced into Einstein’s field equations. (3) The empirical successes of Milgrom’s MOND might suggest dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^–5 . (4) The Riofrio-Sanejouand cosmological model is (approximately) empirically valid if and only if string theory with the finite nature hypothesis is empirically valid if and only if there exist 4 of 5 simple rules (as conjectured by Wolfram) implying empirically satisfactory approximations to quantum field theory and general relativity theory if and only if the monster group and the 6 pariah groups can be used effectively in string theory with the finite nature hypothesis.

According to Bílek, Thies, Kroupa, and Famaey, “Observations show that if gravity is to be modified, then the MOND theory is its excellent approximation on galactic scales.”

Bílek, Michal, Ingo Thies, Pavel Kroupa, and Benoit Famaey. "Origin Of Tidal Structures In Modified Gravity." arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.07537 (2019)

Do the empirical successes of MOND require a new...

view entire post

Bílek, Michal, Ingo Thies, Pavel Kroupa, and Benoit Famaey. "Origin Of Tidal Structures In Modified Gravity." arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.07537 (2019)

Do the empirical successes of MOND require a new...

view entire post

Godel incompleteness is mathematical philosophy and gas nothing to do with physics.

NASA has measured back in 2014 Universe is infinite.

attachments: 3_Cosmology_based_on_measured_data_and_observation.pdf

report post as inappropriate

NASA has measured back in 2014 Universe is infinite.

attachments: 3_Cosmology_based_on_measured_data_and_observation.pdf

report post as inappropriate

"How a mathematical point that has no dimension could extend into infinite space of the universe nobody has an answer. From where all the energy of the universe came in the hypothetical explosion also there is no answer. Big Bang cosmology is not falsifiable (Karl Popper), it is not bijective (A.S. Sorli). Maybe 50 years ago it was an interesting idea. Teaching this theory today at universities seems not right. The universe as a system in a non-created permanent dynamic equilibrium is more appropriate and in accordance with all measured data and observation." My guess is that the empirical evidence supports the preceding ideas. I believe that Green, Schwarz, and Witten are more-or-less on the same level as Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga — however, they fail to realize that Big Bang cosmology contradicts the empirical successes of Milgrom's MOND. Sorli's idea that Big Bang cosmology is not logically bijective is, in my estimation, an important insight.

According to Wikipedia, "In mathematics, a**bijection**, **bijective function**, **one-to-one correspondence**, or **invertible function**, is a function between the elements of two sets, where each element of one set is paired with exactly one element of the other set, and each element of the other set is paired with exactly one element of the first set."

Bijection, Wikipedia

If fundamental information describes nature precisely, then fundamental information should be bijective from one Planck time interval to another. It seems to me that string theory with the finite nature hypothesis is empirically valid — although I might have the details wrong.

According to Wikipedia, "In mathematics, a

Bijection, Wikipedia

If fundamental information describes nature precisely, then fundamental information should be bijective from one Planck time interval to another. It seems to me that string theory with the finite nature hypothesis is empirically valid — although I might have the details wrong.

David. I found your questions about whether nature is infinite or finite and their relationships to the incompleteness theories thought provoking. In my essay “Clarification of Physics—“, I introduce a new perspective that starts from a different “beginning” and accounts for the creation of a finite physical multiverse that includes our visible universe. In order to “discover” this natural process, I had to get rid of the basic assumptions and impossibles currently imposed on physics, start from a different beginning and “find” the mathematics hidden in its finite processing and results. I think you will find the essay interesting and I would appreciate your comments.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

How are undecidability, uncomputability, and unpredictability elated to money and technology? How are money and technology related to string theory? Frank H. Knight wrote, “Economics … is different from physics in degree, since, though it cannot well be made so exact, yet for special reasons it secures a moderate degree of exactness only at the cost of much greater...

view entire post

view entire post

Dear David,

Thank you for a very interesting and well-written essay.

While reading your essay I made the following remarks.

I am like you also attracted to the mystery of life and consciousness

When you are describing the Bohr/Einstein discussion and the String theory you clearly give a description of the problems scientist have in finding solutions, it is only discussions.

From the two paths at the end of page two, I agree with number two. But when I say that immediately I have to ask myself is an illusion finite or infinite? (see my Total Simultaneity Interpretation). The answer could on one side be finite because it is just a moment, but, on the other side infinite because it emerges from its infinite source that is eternal timeless), so our reality can be an infinite part of infinity. So I think I just cannot answer my own question.

“Where do we come from…etc” is also one of "questions" I am trying to explain. You say that MOND requires new paradigms and couple this to the subject of the contest. I explain in my essay that MOND is just another interpretation of the many (not a bad one, because bad interpretations do not exist).

You are very well treating all the “missing knowledge” of the reality we are living in, but not giving an interpretation that brings this situation forward.

Each day agents are developing their conscious idea’s, that is why I made changes in MY ESSAY (Wilhelmus de Wilde re-uploaded the file Wilde_THE_COMPLETELY_UNKNOW.pdf for the essay entitled "THE COMPLETELY UNKNOWN" on 2020-03-25 10:48:58 UTC.)

I hope that you will spare some time to read and comment on my interpretations. (It seems from the scores I received that you can be or for or against it)....

Thanks

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for a very interesting and well-written essay.

While reading your essay I made the following remarks.

I am like you also attracted to the mystery of life and consciousness

When you are describing the Bohr/Einstein discussion and the String theory you clearly give a description of the problems scientist have in finding solutions, it is only discussions.

From the two paths at the end of page two, I agree with number two. But when I say that immediately I have to ask myself is an illusion finite or infinite? (see my Total Simultaneity Interpretation). The answer could on one side be finite because it is just a moment, but, on the other side infinite because it emerges from its infinite source that is eternal timeless), so our reality can be an infinite part of infinity. So I think I just cannot answer my own question.

“Where do we come from…etc” is also one of "questions" I am trying to explain. You say that MOND requires new paradigms and couple this to the subject of the contest. I explain in my essay that MOND is just another interpretation of the many (not a bad one, because bad interpretations do not exist).

You are very well treating all the “missing knowledge” of the reality we are living in, but not giving an interpretation that brings this situation forward.

Each day agents are developing their conscious idea’s, that is why I made changes in MY ESSAY (Wilhelmus de Wilde re-uploaded the file Wilde_THE_COMPLETELY_UNKNOW.pdf for the essay entitled "THE COMPLETELY UNKNOWN" on 2020-03-25 10:48:58 UTC.)

I hope that you will spare some time to read and comment on my interpretations. (It seems from the scores I received that you can be or for or against it)....

Thanks

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

"... treating all the "missing knowledge" of the reality we are living in, but not giving an interpretation that brings this situation forward ..."

It is true that I have failed to reach even the first step of the three steps of my basic program: (1) Find 4 or 5 simple rules that correctly provide the basis for Wolfram's Simple Rules Conjecture. (2) From the precise statement of the 4 or 5 simple rules, derive empirically satisfactory approximations to quantum field theory and general relativity. (3) Provide empirical verifications of the new predictions from the 4 or 5 simple rules. Is my basic program merely a basically wrong idea?

According to Wolfram, "The Standard Model is certainly not the end of physics. There are clearly gaps."

"A Moment for Particle Physics: The End of a 40-Year Story?" by Stephen Wolfram, 5 July 2012, Stephen Wolfram Writings

It is true that I have failed to reach even the first step of the three steps of my basic program: (1) Find 4 or 5 simple rules that correctly provide the basis for Wolfram's Simple Rules Conjecture. (2) From the precise statement of the 4 or 5 simple rules, derive empirically satisfactory approximations to quantum field theory and general relativity. (3) Provide empirical verifications of the new predictions from the 4 or 5 simple rules. Is my basic program merely a basically wrong idea?

According to Wolfram, "The Standard Model is certainly not the end of physics. There are clearly gaps."

"A Moment for Particle Physics: The End of a 40-Year Story?" by Stephen Wolfram, 5 July 2012, Stephen Wolfram Writings

Thank you David for your remarks on my thread

In my perception choices are not made in the past, the Now is an unreachable moment of the future but it is "here" where the choices are made through the partial consciousness of the agent. We are living in the past...

Thoughts are an agent's. conscious experiences in the emerging flow of time. Thinking is becoming aware of one's consciousness, so is a meditation where we are trying to come free from the troubles that are consuming our pasts, we are trying to come closer to Total Simultaneity, the POINT Zero that contains the ALL.

I don't fully agree with Steven Weinberg, because the more we "think" we understand the more we understand that this comprehension is only an infinite little part of ALL there is to understand. You become aware of the relativity of human life towards the whole shebang of our universe (micro and macro). It seems then pointless what your thoughts are adding, they are only a sparkle in infinity. But then I remember that an infinite line without a specific point is no more that specific line but becomes two lines. Then I think that even my minor thoughts, my whole life, is NOT wholly pointless, but is needed to bring two infinities together...

just a thought

Best regards

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

In my perception choices are not made in the past, the Now is an unreachable moment of the future but it is "here" where the choices are made through the partial consciousness of the agent. We are living in the past...

Thoughts are an agent's. conscious experiences in the emerging flow of time. Thinking is becoming aware of one's consciousness, so is a meditation where we are trying to come free from the troubles that are consuming our pasts, we are trying to come closer to Total Simultaneity, the POINT Zero that contains the ALL.

I don't fully agree with Steven Weinberg, because the more we "think" we understand the more we understand that this comprehension is only an infinite little part of ALL there is to understand. You become aware of the relativity of human life towards the whole shebang of our universe (micro and macro). It seems then pointless what your thoughts are adding, they are only a sparkle in infinity. But then I remember that an infinite line without a specific point is no more that specific line but becomes two lines. Then I think that even my minor thoughts, my whole life, is NOT wholly pointless, but is needed to bring two infinities together...

just a thought

Best regards

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

David Brown re-uploaded the file Brown_davidbrownessayfqxi20.pdf for the essay entitled "Gödel versus Wolfram on Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability, plus Bohr versus Einstein on Uncertainty" on 2020-03-27 06:34:00 UTC.

post approved

post approved

How might Gödel's 1st and 2nd incompleteness theorems be extrapolated?

"Is our brain smart enough to understand the brain?" by Stanislas Dehaene, 2002, edge.org

Consider the following idea: No matter how smart you are, you are too stupid to understand how your own brain works.

Gödel found a mathematical formulation of the following statement: This statement is true but unprovable in the axiomatic system you are using.

Let us suppose that you have a remarkably precise and sophisticated computer simulation of the molecular mechanisms of your own brain. There might be a complicated line of computer code that encodes the following: This statement is necessary for you to completely understand how your own brain works, and this statement is too complicated for you to understand.

"Is our brain smart enough to understand the brain?" by Stanislas Dehaene, 2002, edge.org

Consider the following idea: No matter how smart you are, you are too stupid to understand how your own brain works.

Gödel found a mathematical formulation of the following statement: This statement is true but unprovable in the axiomatic system you are using.

Let us suppose that you have a remarkably precise and sophisticated computer simulation of the molecular mechanisms of your own brain. There might be a complicated line of computer code that encodes the following: This statement is necessary for you to completely understand how your own brain works, and this statement is too complicated for you to understand.

Dear David,

You give good thoughts to David Spergel and Rebecca Goldstein:

“Both dark matter and dark energy require extensions to our current understanding of particle physics or point toward a breakdown of general relativity on cosmological scales.”

“The necessary incompleteness of even our formal systems of thought demonstrates that there is no nonshifting...

view entire post

You give good thoughts to David Spergel and Rebecca Goldstein:

“Both dark matter and dark energy require extensions to our current understanding of particle physics or point toward a breakdown of general relativity on cosmological scales.”

“The necessary incompleteness of even our formal systems of thought demonstrates that there is no nonshifting...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

“Due to the unsolved problem of justification of Mathematics, paradigm problems in Computational mathematics have arisen. It's time to return ↔ Into Dialectics. The solution to the problem of the foundations of Mathematics, and therefore knowledge in general, is the solution to the problem of modeling (constructing) the ontological basis of knowledge - the ontological model of the primordial generating process.”

One basic question for constructing the ontological basis of knowledge might be: Does the Big Bang hypothesis contradict empirical evidence? My guess is that string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis implies the Big Bang and dark-matter-compensation-constant = 0, but string theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies the Riofrio-Sanejouand cosmological model and the value of the dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^–5 . It might be true that the Gravity Probe B science team is correct and I am wrong about the 4 ultra-precise gyroscopes. In any case, it seems to me that the concept of infinity (either a complete infinity or a potential infinity) is philosophically unsatisfactory. Is the Axiom of Choice relevant to physics (or any empirical science except anthropology)?

The Axiom of Choice” by John Lane Bell, 2015, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

John Lane Bell, Wikipedia

One basic question for constructing the ontological basis of knowledge might be: Does the Big Bang hypothesis contradict empirical evidence? My guess is that string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis implies the Big Bang and dark-matter-compensation-constant = 0, but string theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies the Riofrio-Sanejouand cosmological model and the value of the dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^–5 . It might be true that the Gravity Probe B science team is correct and I am wrong about the 4 ultra-precise gyroscopes. In any case, it seems to me that the concept of infinity (either a complete infinity or a potential infinity) is philosophically unsatisfactory. Is the Axiom of Choice relevant to physics (or any empirical science except anthropology)?

The Axiom of Choice” by John Lane Bell, 2015, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

John Lane Bell, Wikipedia

What are the implications of Milgrom's MOND for the scientific and philosophical foundations of undecidability, uncomputability, and unpredictability? What is relativistic MOND?

In 2019 Banik and Kroupa suggested 2 tests of (non-relativistic) MOND:

Banik, Indranil, and Pavel Kroupa. "Directly testing gravity with Proxima Centauri." Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 487, no. 2 (2019): 1653-1661.

”Directly testing gravity with Proxima Centauri”, arXiv preprint

Banik, Indranil, and Pavel Kroupa. "Testing gravity with interstellar precursor missions." Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 487, no. 2 (2019): 2665-2672.

"Testing gravity with interstellar precursor missions”, arXiv preprint

In 2019 Banik and Kroupa suggested 2 tests of (non-relativistic) MOND:

Banik, Indranil, and Pavel Kroupa. "Directly testing gravity with Proxima Centauri." Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 487, no. 2 (2019): 1653-1661.

”Directly testing gravity with Proxima Centauri”, arXiv preprint

Banik, Indranil, and Pavel Kroupa. "Testing gravity with interstellar precursor missions." Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 487, no. 2 (2019): 2665-2672.

"Testing gravity with interstellar precursor missions”, arXiv preprint

The theory, which claims to be "fundamental", must be ontologically grounded. Along with the Empirical standard for justification of scientific theories, it is necessary to introduce the Ontological standard for basification of theory. General relativity and string theory - theories without ontological basification.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Is string theory "ontologically grounded"? At the present time, the majority of string theorists say that dark-matter-compensation-constant = 0, i.e., gravitational energy is empirically conserved in the Newtonian approximation of general relativity theory. I say dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^–5 — if I am wrong about this then I am forced to admit that my speculations concerning general relativity theory and string theory are wrong. What then?

The question is, in the words of Witten, "... what happens to Albert Einstein's conception of spaceetime?"

"What every physicist should know about theory" by Edward Witten, 2015, Physics Today

The question is, in the words of Witten, "... what happens to Albert Einstein's conception of spaceetime?"

"What every physicist should know about theory" by Edward Witten, 2015, Physics Today

What are the most fundamental questions about undecidability, uncomputability, and unpredictability? What is predictability? Why does predictability exist? What is truth? Why does truth exist? Objective truth might be fundamentally different from subjective truth within a logically consistent framework of beliefs. Mathematical predictability is one thing — empirical predictability is another thing and perhaps more fundamental. I say that Milgrom’s MOND has many empirical successes and MOND’s empirical successes require a new paradigm for the foundations of physics. Does the new paradigm for MOND accept infinity or reject infinity? Do all of the positive integers occur in nature? What is constructivity in mathematics?

According to Paul Cohen, “Many people devoted their efforts to developing various parts of mathematics in a constructive manner. I think that for many the crucial issue is already present in the most basic part of mathematics, number theory. Since classical set theory is non-constructive almost by definition, in that it speaks of infinite sets, one hardly expects constructive ideas to be successful here.”

"Skolem and pessimism about proof in mathematics" by Paul Cohen, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering, 2005, volume 363, number 1835, quote on p. 2412 of pages 2407–2418

According to Paul Cohen, “Many people devoted their efforts to developing various parts of mathematics in a constructive manner. I think that for many the crucial issue is already present in the most basic part of mathematics, number theory. Since classical set theory is non-constructive almost by definition, in that it speaks of infinite sets, one hardly expects constructive ideas to be successful here.”

"Skolem and pessimism about proof in mathematics" by Paul Cohen, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering, 2005, volume 363, number 1835, quote on p. 2412 of pages 2407–2418

Assume dark-matter-compensation-constant = 0 and string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis is empirically valid.

Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections might explain the numerical value of the fine structure constant.

Lestone, John Paul. Possible reason for the numerical value of the fine-structure constant. No. LA-UR-18-21550. Los Alamos National Lab.(LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States), 2018.

Lestone, J. P. "QED: A different perspective." (2018). Los Alamos report LA-UR-18-29048

If Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections is empirically valid, then does it require a new uncertainty principle?

According to some of the string theorists, spacetime is doomed. If spacetime is doomed then is a new uncertainty principle required? What are the criticisms of the following?

There exists a (finite) Lestone-maximum-mass > 0, such that for any massive elementary particle in the Standard Model of particle physics,

(standard deviation of position) * (standard deviation of velocity) ≥

(reduced-Planck's-constant/2) / (Lestone-maximum-mass) .

Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections might explain the numerical value of the fine structure constant.

Lestone, John Paul. Possible reason for the numerical value of the fine-structure constant. No. LA-UR-18-21550. Los Alamos National Lab.(LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States), 2018.

Lestone, J. P. "QED: A different perspective." (2018). Los Alamos report LA-UR-18-29048

If Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections is empirically valid, then does it require a new uncertainty principle?

According to some of the string theorists, spacetime is doomed. If spacetime is doomed then is a new uncertainty principle required? What are the criticisms of the following?

There exists a (finite) Lestone-maximum-mass > 0, such that for any massive elementary particle in the Standard Model of particle physics,

(standard deviation of position) * (standard deviation of velocity) ≥

(reduced-Planck's-constant/2) / (Lestone-maximum-mass) .

godel ,Einstein ,Heisenberg... name it.are all human, according to Einstein theories are descriptions Of The world and all are manufactured by humans. can the natural unpolluted human being psyche be a bias to which a basic interactive framework can describe reality. pls take your time to read/rate my essay here-https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3525.thanks for the computing knowledge you've added to my database.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Dear David Brown,

Thank you for very interesting essay.

There is a strong possibility that our physical universe is infinite. In cosmic inflation theory, the commonly accepted cosmology model, a multiverse is inevitable. In a multiverse, one cannot avoid infinity. See the great works of Andrei Linde, Alan Guth and Alex Vilenkin.

In my essay, I conclude that reality is identical to V (Von Neumann universe). However, unlike the standard view, I view V as dynamic, not static. V is evolving, just like us human. V may have consciousness too. Whitehead's process philosophy may be relevant here.

Best regards,

Agus

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for very interesting essay.

There is a strong possibility that our physical universe is infinite. In cosmic inflation theory, the commonly accepted cosmology model, a multiverse is inevitable. In a multiverse, one cannot avoid infinity. See the great works of Andrei Linde, Alan Guth and Alex Vilenkin.

In my essay, I conclude that reality is identical to V (Von Neumann universe). However, unlike the standard view, I view V as dynamic, not static. V is evolving, just like us human. V may have consciousness too. Whitehead's process philosophy may be relevant here.

Best regards,

Agus

report post as inappropriate

"There is a strong possibility that our universe is infinite." Because the amount of empirical data is, presumably, always finite, it seems to me that there will never be a completely satisfactory resolution of the question of infinity as a physical reality. However, I say that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology — on the basis of overwhelming empirical evidence. Google "kroupa milgrom". It seems to me that Guth and the majority of astrophysicists have ignored and underestimated the empirical successes of Milgrom's MOND.

For example, the following article

Geller, Sarah R., Jolyon K. Bloomfield, and Alan H. Guth. "Mass of a Patch of an FRW Universe." arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.02249 (2018)

makes no mention of MOND — my guess is that the history of astrophysics and cosmology will eventually reveal that ignoring MOND is a bad mistake.

For example, the following article

Geller, Sarah R., Jolyon K. Bloomfield, and Alan H. Guth. "Mass of a Patch of an FRW Universe." arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.02249 (2018)

makes no mention of MOND — my guess is that the history of astrophysics and cosmology will eventually reveal that ignoring MOND is a bad mistake.

Assessing the scientific status of inflation after Planck

Debika Chowdhury, Jérôme Martin, Christophe Ringeval, and Vincent Vennin

Phys. Rev. D 100, 083537 – Published 24 October 2019

ABSTRACT Inflation is considered as the best theory of the early universe by a very large fraction of cosmologists. However, the validity of a scientific model is not decided by counting the number of its supporters, and, therefore, this dominance cannot be taken as a proof of its correctness. Throughout its history, many criticisms have been put forward against inflation. The final publication of the Planck cosmic microwave background data represents a benchmark time to study their relevance and to decide whether inflation really deserves its supremacy. In this paper, we categorize the criticisms against inflation, go through all of them in the light of what is now observationally known about the early universe, and try to infer and assess the scientific status of inflation. Although we find that important questions still remain open, we conclude that the inflationary paradigm is not in trouble but, on the contrary, has rather been strengthened by the Planck data.

report post as inappropriate

Debika Chowdhury, Jérôme Martin, Christophe Ringeval, and Vincent Vennin

Phys. Rev. D 100, 083537 – Published 24 October 2019

ABSTRACT Inflation is considered as the best theory of the early universe by a very large fraction of cosmologists. However, the validity of a scientific model is not decided by counting the number of its supporters, and, therefore, this dominance cannot be taken as a proof of its correctness. Throughout its history, many criticisms have been put forward against inflation. The final publication of the Planck cosmic microwave background data represents a benchmark time to study their relevance and to decide whether inflation really deserves its supremacy. In this paper, we categorize the criticisms against inflation, go through all of them in the light of what is now observationally known about the early universe, and try to infer and assess the scientific status of inflation. Although we find that important questions still remain open, we conclude that the inflationary paradigm is not in trouble but, on the contrary, has rather been strengthened by the Planck data.

report post as inappropriate

"... the validity of a scientific model is not decided by counting the numbers of its supporters ..." I suggest that the evidence supports Milgrom, Kroupa, McGaugh, Sanders, and Scarpa. Is Sanejouand a genius?

Yves-Henri Sanejouand, CNRS

Sanejouand, Yves-Henri. "A simple Hubble-like law in lieu of dark energy." arXiv preprint arXiv:1401.2919 (2014)

The question might be: Is gravitational energy conserved?

Yves-Henri Sanejouand, CNRS

Sanejouand, Yves-Henri. "A simple Hubble-like law in lieu of dark energy." arXiv preprint arXiv:1401.2919 (2014)

The question might be: Is gravitational energy conserved?

Dear David Brown,

Thank you for a very interesting essay.

As you may have noted from my posts to other essayists I prefer a finite rotating universe composed of aether (one type of particle) and matter (also one type of particle) with simple rules (force laws) between aggegations of matter. This simple model predicts a baryonic CDM that is neutral, and in equal proportion to normal matter. This means that there must be a lot more unseen normal matter than is counted in the numerous census's. (most likely H2!) My theory of gravity is different to all others but obey's Newtonian rules. I do not go with gravitons or any form of boson as a force carrier at all, as I can explain forces using fields instead. However I do not cover these ideas in my essay, which is on other matters pertaining to the essay topic of the 3 Un's.

BTW I can calculate the masses of the various baryons quite simply, which makes me think the Koide formula is just a numerical co-incidence. I tried to make sense of it, knowing how basic matter is constructed from quarks but I failed.

Thanks for the Sanejouand link, I shall peruse it when I have finished with the plethora of essays.

LL&P

Lockie Cresswell

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for a very interesting essay.

As you may have noted from my posts to other essayists I prefer a finite rotating universe composed of aether (one type of particle) and matter (also one type of particle) with simple rules (force laws) between aggegations of matter. This simple model predicts a baryonic CDM that is neutral, and in equal proportion to normal matter. This means that there must be a lot more unseen normal matter than is counted in the numerous census's. (most likely H2!) My theory of gravity is different to all others but obey's Newtonian rules. I do not go with gravitons or any form of boson as a force carrier at all, as I can explain forces using fields instead. However I do not cover these ideas in my essay, which is on other matters pertaining to the essay topic of the 3 Un's.

BTW I can calculate the masses of the various baryons quite simply, which makes me think the Koide formula is just a numerical co-incidence. I tried to make sense of it, knowing how basic matter is constructed from quarks but I failed.

Thanks for the Sanejouand link, I shall peruse it when I have finished with the plethora of essays.

LL&P

Lockie Cresswell

report post as inappropriate

How might physicists give an empirical proof that "the Koide formula is just a numerical co-incidence"? Motl has argued the Koide formula is merely a meaningless curiosity.

"Could the Koide formula be real?" by Luboš Motl, 2012

I have speculated that string theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies square-root(mass) has a meaning in terms of area. In string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis, square-root(mass) might have a meaning in terms of Koide-uncertainty, where this uncertainty is somehow related to the string landscape. What might be the possibilities for introducing square-root(mass-energy) as an essential concept in physics?

"Could the Koide formula be real?" by Luboš Motl, 2012

I have speculated that string theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies square-root(mass) has a meaning in terms of area. In string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis, square-root(mass) might have a meaning in terms of Koide-uncertainty, where this uncertainty is somehow related to the string landscape. What might be the possibilities for introducing square-root(mass-energy) as an essential concept in physics?

Let us assume that my basic theory is wrong.

Consider: “The Discrepancy in Galaxy Rotation Curves” by Roy Gomel and Tomer Zimmerman, 2019.

It seems to me that the idea as stated by Gomel and Zimmerman is wrong. However, I believe that their idea might be modified as follows:

In the standard form of Einstein’s field equations, replace the -1/2 by -1/2 + Gomel-Zimmerman-fictitious-force-function.

Replace the Einstein equivalence principle:

(Inertial mass-energy) * (Acceleration) =

(Intensity of the gravitational field) * (Gravitational mass-energy) by an Einstein-Gomel-Zimmerman equivalence principle:

(Inertial mass-energy) * (Acceleration) =

(Intensity of the gravitational field) * (Gravitational mass-energy in the universe + Gravitational mass-energy modified by the multiverse ).

With the Einstein equivalence principle, gravitons should have spin 2.

With the Einstein-Gomel-Zimmerman equivalence principle, gravitons might have

spin 2 + multiverse-epsilon. This excess energy might be the explanation for the empirical successes of Milgrom’s MOND.

What might be plausible ways of modifying the Gomel-Zimmerman explanation?

Consider: “The Discrepancy in Galaxy Rotation Curves” by Roy Gomel and Tomer Zimmerman, 2019.

It seems to me that the idea as stated by Gomel and Zimmerman is wrong. However, I believe that their idea might be modified as follows:

In the standard form of Einstein’s field equations, replace the -1/2 by -1/2 + Gomel-Zimmerman-fictitious-force-function.

Replace the Einstein equivalence principle:

(Inertial mass-energy) * (Acceleration) =

(Intensity of the gravitational field) * (Gravitational mass-energy) by an Einstein-Gomel-Zimmerman equivalence principle:

(Inertial mass-energy) * (Acceleration) =

(Intensity of the gravitational field) * (Gravitational mass-energy in the universe + Gravitational mass-energy modified by the multiverse ).

With the Einstein equivalence principle, gravitons should have spin 2.

With the Einstein-Gomel-Zimmerman equivalence principle, gravitons might have

spin 2 + multiverse-epsilon. This excess energy might be the explanation for the empirical successes of Milgrom’s MOND.

What might be plausible ways of modifying the Gomel-Zimmerman explanation?

Consider the following hypothesis: General relativity theory is a mathematical formulation of the concept of Einsteinian reference frames. However, Einstein's model omits dark matter, which is a stringy Gomel-Zimmerman fictitious force. This hypothetical fictitious force arises from the gravitational mass-energy of the Calabi-Yau component of the string landscape. In other words, the string landscapes does not yield Einsteinian cosmological models but instead modified Einsteinian models with the stringy Gomel-Zimmerman fictitious force.

Calabi-Yau manifold, Wikipedia

Calabi-Yau manifold, Wikipedia

Dear David,

I notice that Jonathan comments that the jury is still out on the spin 2 graviton.

I commented to Andrew Beckwith "I am not a fan of bosons as fundamental force particles (except for Higgs), and can provide alternative suggestions for photons, gluons, and W/Z bosons. Nor am I a believer in gravitons, as I have formulated my own ‘action at a distance’ theory of gravity using strings of what I suppose are Higgs particles, although I call them ginn (or aether particles). Because I have a working particle theory I decided to do a back of the envelope calculation of their (string) gram equivalent mass and got a number 10-34 g which is some 28 orders greater than the 10-62 g you (A.B) mentioned for the graviton."

I also have a working theory that dark matter is in two forms, a halo of neutral antimatter, and a good deal of normal matter in a variety of forms, notably H2.

Thanks for the Motl link, I shall have a look right away.

Regards

Lockie

report post as inappropriate

I notice that Jonathan comments that the jury is still out on the spin 2 graviton.

I commented to Andrew Beckwith "I am not a fan of bosons as fundamental force particles (except for Higgs), and can provide alternative suggestions for photons, gluons, and W/Z bosons. Nor am I a believer in gravitons, as I have formulated my own ‘action at a distance’ theory of gravity using strings of what I suppose are Higgs particles, although I call them ginn (or aether particles). Because I have a working particle theory I decided to do a back of the envelope calculation of their (string) gram equivalent mass and got a number 10-34 g which is some 28 orders greater than the 10-62 g you (A.B) mentioned for the graviton."

I also have a working theory that dark matter is in two forms, a halo of neutral antimatter, and a good deal of normal matter in a variety of forms, notably H2.

Thanks for the Motl link, I shall have a look right away.

Regards

Lockie

report post as inappropriate

Your essay is intriguing...

I agree with many of your premises and most of your conclusions, but I feel like your understanding is incomplete. There is too little 'glue' in some of your explanations, so the reader is left to fill in the blanks with appreciation for your cited references. As you know; I am not in denial about Milgrom and I have some appreciation for String theory, but this essay falls a little short of the ideal, raising some great questions and showing evidence but not making clear sense of how the pieces fit together.

I think the jury is out on the zero mass spin-2 graviton. And some of the pieces you put in place also occur in some theories where the graviton has mass and therefore multiple polarization states, such as the DGP and cascading DGP models. So that piece has merit. As far as uncertainty coming with money goes; I think your view is a bit short-sighted. The story goes that money was invented when temple worshipers argued the value of various commodities like pigs or cattle, sheaves of wheat, or baskets of fruit, and they had to come up with a standard unit of exchange.

There may be a good reason why the root words coinus and coitus sound the same. And ironically; the cause of the market crash in 2008 (?) might have been something called the Gaussian Copula Function, used to estimate derivatives. David X. Li was very clever and he gave his caveats first, then described the advantages of using his equation. So people had a false sense of security that risk estimation equaled risk containment. Mandelbrot warned people about some of this, not to trust the bell curve (Gaussian) because it was truncated due to attrition. People should have known better. It was greed and bad Math that made things economically unstable.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

I agree with many of your premises and most of your conclusions, but I feel like your understanding is incomplete. There is too little 'glue' in some of your explanations, so the reader is left to fill in the blanks with appreciation for your cited references. As you know; I am not in denial about Milgrom and I have some appreciation for String theory, but this essay falls a little short of the ideal, raising some great questions and showing evidence but not making clear sense of how the pieces fit together.

I think the jury is out on the zero mass spin-2 graviton. And some of the pieces you put in place also occur in some theories where the graviton has mass and therefore multiple polarization states, such as the DGP and cascading DGP models. So that piece has merit. As far as uncertainty coming with money goes; I think your view is a bit short-sighted. The story goes that money was invented when temple worshipers argued the value of various commodities like pigs or cattle, sheaves of wheat, or baskets of fruit, and they had to come up with a standard unit of exchange.

There may be a good reason why the root words coinus and coitus sound the same. And ironically; the cause of the market crash in 2008 (?) might have been something called the Gaussian Copula Function, used to estimate derivatives. David X. Li was very clever and he gave his caveats first, then described the advantages of using his equation. So people had a false sense of security that risk estimation equaled risk containment. Mandelbrot warned people about some of this, not to trust the bell curve (Gaussian) because it was truncated due to attrition. People should have known better. It was greed and bad Math that made things economically unstable.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

"... the cause of the market crash in 2008 ..." Why do markets crash? Are markets and money always permeated by hidden uncertainties? It is unclear what money is — is it wampum, tulips, or Bitcoin?

According to Ben Bernanke, "Financial panics have a substantial psychological component. Projecting calm, rationality, and reassurance is half the battle ..."

"Crashed: How a Decade of Financial Crises Changed the World" by Adam Tooze, Penguin, 2018

According to Ben Bernanke, "Financial panics have a substantial psychological component. Projecting calm, rationality, and reassurance is half the battle ..."

"Crashed: How a Decade of Financial Crises Changed the World" by Adam Tooze, Penguin, 2018

Absolutely!

The cause is more than half panic, in many cases. I've been reading about the neoliberals and neoconservatives trying to outmaneuver each other for financial gain and to preserve the ideological conflict. Both schemes tend to concentrate wealth for the elites while leaving the commonwealth unfed. The only real difference is which special interests win.

Disgusting! Only a strong middle class guarantees basic freedoms. Otherwise; the whole Finance game goes down. The world is coming more and more to resemble the dark predictions in the movie "Rollerball" and what really suffers most is the push for individual accomplishment. People are being trained to act like cogs in a machine. Not healthy for society.

I'll have to read what Bernanke has to say.

Best,

JJD

report post as inappropriate

The cause is more than half panic, in many cases. I've been reading about the neoliberals and neoconservatives trying to outmaneuver each other for financial gain and to preserve the ideological conflict. Both schemes tend to concentrate wealth for the elites while leaving the commonwealth unfed. The only real difference is which special interests win.

Disgusting! Only a strong middle class guarantees basic freedoms. Otherwise; the whole Finance game goes down. The world is coming more and more to resemble the dark predictions in the movie "Rollerball" and what really suffers most is the push for individual accomplishment. People are being trained to act like cogs in a machine. Not healthy for society.

I'll have to read what Bernanke has to say.

Best,

JJD

report post as inappropriate

Hi David,

The thread reply wasn't working so I will post here instead. I checked out Motl and also Rivera and Gsponer. Most interesting! My gimli theory (nothing to do with River's Gims explains why the masses of the muon and tau are greater, but I cannot yet predict the values (hopefully in the future). What I didn't like about Koide was that with the quarks, he included the strange with the up and down. That is mixing the families, which I think is a mistake. I am still a bit unnerved wrt the leptons given that I consider they are composed of preons, that fit ratios of 1/3.

As for Gomel-Zimmerman, I think fictitious forces that arise in non-inertial frames should be taken into account when constructing a theoretical rotation curve. I'm not sure about the G-Z stringy stuff, although I suspect DM's gravity is the same as normal matter's gravity. (which in my theory is all stringy stuff of a sort).

Cheers

Lockie

report post as inappropriate

The thread reply wasn't working so I will post here instead. I checked out Motl and also Rivera and Gsponer. Most interesting! My gimli theory (nothing to do with River's Gims explains why the masses of the muon and tau are greater, but I cannot yet predict the values (hopefully in the future). What I didn't like about Koide was that with the quarks, he included the strange with the up and down. That is mixing the families, which I think is a mistake. I am still a bit unnerved wrt the leptons given that I consider they are composed of preons, that fit ratios of 1/3.

As for Gomel-Zimmerman, I think fictitious forces that arise in non-inertial frames should be taken into account when constructing a theoretical rotation curve. I'm not sure about the G-Z stringy stuff, although I suspect DM's gravity is the same as normal matter's gravity. (which in my theory is all stringy stuff of a sort).

Cheers

Lockie

report post as inappropriate

The question of whether "DM's gravity is the same as normal matter's gravity" is central to understanding Milgrom's MOND. Milgrom's MOND has many empirical successes — there are 2 basic possibilities:

(1) After quantum averaging, Einstein's field equations are 100% correct, but appear to be slightly wrong for some unknown reason.

(2) After quantum averaging, Newtonian-Einsteinian gravitational theory is slightly wrong.

Have the string theorists underestimated Milgrom? My guess is that supersymmetry occurs in nature if and only if nature is infinite.

According to Halverson and Langacker,, “Superstring theory … yields a consistent and finite unification of quantum theory, gravity, and other interactions, at least at the perturbative level, and is therefore a promising candidate for an ultimate unified theory. However, it is not clear whether Nature actually takes advantage of string theory, or whether there is any way to confirm or falsify it. … Part of the problem is that the fundamental string scale is most likely much larger than can ever be directly probed experimentally. …”

Halverson, James, and Paul Langacker. "TASI lectures on remnants from the string landscape." arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.03503 (2018)

It is clear to me that if dark matter particles occur in nature then some (and perhaps all) of them must display MONDian weirdness (whatever that might be). However, it seems to me that the string landscape allows so may fudge factors that it can never be decisively refuted.

(1) After quantum averaging, Einstein's field equations are 100% correct, but appear to be slightly wrong for some unknown reason.

(2) After quantum averaging, Newtonian-Einsteinian gravitational theory is slightly wrong.

Have the string theorists underestimated Milgrom? My guess is that supersymmetry occurs in nature if and only if nature is infinite.

According to Halverson and Langacker,, “Superstring theory … yields a consistent and finite unification of quantum theory, gravity, and other interactions, at least at the perturbative level, and is therefore a promising candidate for an ultimate unified theory. However, it is not clear whether Nature actually takes advantage of string theory, or whether there is any way to confirm or falsify it. … Part of the problem is that the fundamental string scale is most likely much larger than can ever be directly probed experimentally. …”

Halverson, James, and Paul Langacker. "TASI lectures on remnants from the string landscape." arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.03503 (2018)

It is clear to me that if dark matter particles occur in nature then some (and perhaps all) of them must display MONDian weirdness (whatever that might be). However, it seems to me that the string landscape allows so may fudge factors that it can never be decisively refuted.

Hi David,

I am still reading various essays and I came across some further comments of yours that got me reading and thinking.

Firstly my gimli theory makes a clear prediction of what dark matter is, and it is baryonic in nature and I would expect it to be in equal proportion to normal matter, which appears not to be the case. This might imply that there is more normal matter in the form of H_{2} that hasnt yet been detected, and possibly some warm dark matter component (I suspect neutrinos) that also needs to be 'weighed'.

On another tack I noticed a reference to an old presentation of mine that discussed GM=TC^{3}, which is something I hypothesised back in the early 2000's, when I worked out a definition of time. When presenting a section on time in 2013 I included a section on variable speed of light theories by Einstein, Dicke, Magueijo, and my own. I speculated that if the permittivity of free space was held constant (since I had no reason to expect charge to vary) then the permeability of free space would have to change over time, and that this may be seen in astrophysical observations. I have also used changing permeability to sucessfully explain neutrino oscillations, so there may be something worthwhile in it. Using your references I just found that Riofrio and Kulick both have used the same idea of GM=TC^{3}, although from different reasonings. As I said mine came directly from my definition of time, which is based on the Einstein-Planck formula with an important modification to allow for the clock.

Hope this may be of interest,

Lockie Cresswell

report post as inappropriate

I am still reading various essays and I came across some further comments of yours that got me reading and thinking.

Firstly my gimli theory makes a clear prediction of what dark matter is, and it is baryonic in nature and I would expect it to be in equal proportion to normal matter, which appears not to be the case. This might imply that there is more normal matter in the form of H

On another tack I noticed a reference to an old presentation of mine that discussed GM=TC

Hope this may be of interest,

Lockie Cresswell

report post as inappropriate

The prediction of "what dark matter is" seems to me to be a concept of string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis — and *not* a concept of string theory with the finite nature hypothesis (*i.e.* there is no dark matter). My guess is that, in string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis, it is difficult to accommodate the hypothesis that the speed of light in a perfect vacuum decreases as our universe ages — it leads to some extremely complicated modification of the prevailing paradigm of physics. In general relativity, there are the two following qualitative predictions: As energy-density increases, time slows down. As energy-density decreases, time speeds up. If the radius of our universe is a constant, the speeding up of time would seem to be equivalent to a loss of gravitational energy. According to Sean Carroll, "The Bullet Cluster and the CMB both provide straightforward evidence that there is gravity pointing in the direction of something other than the ordinary matter."

"Dark matter vs. modified gravity: trialogue", Sean Carroll's blog (preposterousverse.com/blog), May 9, 2012

However, Sean Carroll assumes that the gravitational bending of light is adequately predicted by Einstein's field equations — I suggest dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^–5 .

"Dark matter vs. modified gravity: trialogue", Sean Carroll's blog (preposterousverse.com/blog), May 9, 2012

However, Sean Carroll assumes that the gravitational bending of light is adequately predicted by Einstein's field equations — I suggest dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^–5 .

To what extent are the foundations of physics undecidable? How is string theory related to undecidability, uncomputability, and unpredictability? On the basis of string theory is there a unified theory of algebraic geometry, differentiable geometry, and theoretical physics?

According to Hirosi Ooguri in 2009, “The topological string theory was introduced by E. Witten about 20 years ago, and it has been developed by collaborations of physicists and mathematicians. Its mathematical structure is very rich, and it has lead to discoveries of new connections between different areas of mathematics, ranging from algebraic geometry, symplectic geometry and topology, to combinatorics, probability and representation theory.”

Ooguri, Hirosi. "Geometry as seen by string theory." Japanese Journal of Mathematics 4, no. 2 (2009): 95.

arXiv preprint, 2009

Think of algebraic geometry as theoretical physics with the removal of time and energy. What is the fundamental role of lattices in algebraic geometry? What is the fundamental role of lattice vibrations in theoretical physics? My guess is that supersymmetry occurs in nature if and only if nature is infinite, and nature is finite if and only if string vibrations are confined to 3 copies of the Leech lattice.

According to Hirosi Ooguri in 2009, “The topological string theory was introduced by E. Witten about 20 years ago, and it has been developed by collaborations of physicists and mathematicians. Its mathematical structure is very rich, and it has lead to discoveries of new connections between different areas of mathematics, ranging from algebraic geometry, symplectic geometry and topology, to combinatorics, probability and representation theory.”

Ooguri, Hirosi. "Geometry as seen by string theory." Japanese Journal of Mathematics 4, no. 2 (2009): 95.

arXiv preprint, 2009

Think of algebraic geometry as theoretical physics with the removal of time and energy. What is the fundamental role of lattices in algebraic geometry? What is the fundamental role of lattice vibrations in theoretical physics? My guess is that supersymmetry occurs in nature if and only if nature is infinite, and nature is finite if and only if string vibrations are confined to 3 copies of the Leech lattice.

Consider that the Higgs field and Dark Matter are one and the same.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

According to Kroupa, dark matter particles are unlikely to exist. I agree with Kroupa. For alternate ideas, see:

Arcadi, Giorgio, Abdelhak Djouadi, and Martti Raidal. "Dark matter through the Higgs portal." Physics Reports 842 (2020): 1-180.

arXiv preprint

Arcadi, Giorgio, Abdelhak Djouadi, and Martti Raidal. "Dark matter through the Higgs portal." Physics Reports 842 (2020): 1-180.

arXiv preprint

According to Denef, Douglas, Greene, & Zukowski, “By defining a cosmology as a space-time containing a vacuum with specified properties (for example small cosmological constant) together with rules for how time evolution will produce the vacuum, we can associate global time in a multiverse with clock time on a supercomputer which simulates it.”

Denef, Frederik, Michael R. Douglas, Brian...

view entire post

Denef, Frederik, Michael R. Douglas, Brian...

view entire post

Login or create account to post reply or comment.