Search FQXi


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

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

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest


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

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - March 16, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discuss

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

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

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

David Brown: on 1/18/20 at 14:09pm UTC, wrote "In new Cartesian physics any movement is seen as the result of rotors of...

Dizhechko Semyonovich: on 1/16/20 at 18:36pm UTC, wrote Dear David Brown In your essay you showed your high erudition and you can...

David Brown: on 1/14/20 at 12:30pm UTC, wrote How uncertain is the empirical validity of MOND? Admittedly, my...

David Brown: on 1/14/20 at 11:58am UTC, wrote Is there an Einstein-Riofrio duality principle that is related to...

David Brown: on 1/13/20 at 20:06pm UTC, wrote How might uncertainty be related to the inflaton field and string theory?...

David Brown: on 1/13/20 at 20:04pm UTC, wrote How might D-branes be related to uncertainty? Do D-branes occur in nature? ...

David Brown: on 1/13/20 at 20:02pm UTC, wrote According to Callender and Huggett, "In recent years it has sometimes been...

David Brown: on 1/13/20 at 20:00pm UTC, wrote It seems that quantum field theory has a problem at the Planck scale...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Robert McEachern: "It is unfortunate that there is no easy way to "show all replies", so that..." in Alternative Models of...

Malcolm Riddoch: "@Robert, sorry this forum software is rather obtuse and I couldn't find..." in Alternative Models of...

John Cox: "Lorraine, I briefly described the relationship of mass to inertia..." in Emergent Reality: Markus...

Lorraine Ford: "John, I would say that you need to think what you mean by “physical..." in Emergent Reality: Markus...

Lorraine Ford: "Re "I tend to speed-read then review before scoring after reading a good..." in Undecidability,...

John Cox: "George, We shouldn't conflate contradiction with inconsistency. QM has a..." in Watching the Watchmen:...

John Cox: "Georgi, by and large I agree. Near the end of the discussion panel,..." in Watching the Watchmen:...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
January 22, 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]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.


Author David Brown wrote on Jan. 7, 2020 @ 17:54 GMT
Essay Abstract

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.

Author Bio

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

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Author David Brown wrote on Jan. 8, 2020 @ 12:15 GMT
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".

Bookmark and Share


Author David Brown replied on Jan. 8, 2020 @ 13:09 GMT
Another error: In the section "STRING THEORY AND UNCERTAINTY", I misquoted Einstein — replace "algebraic theory theory" by "algebraic theory".

Bookmark and Share



Author David Brown wrote on Jan. 9, 2020 @ 09:41 GMT
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".

Bookmark and Share


Author David Brown replied on Jan. 13, 2020 @ 20:06 GMT
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.)

Bookmark and Share
post approved


Author David Brown wrote on Jan. 11, 2020 @ 11:40 GMT
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?

Bookmark and Share



Author David Brown wrote on Jan. 12, 2020 @ 14:22 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share


Author David Brown replied on Jan. 13, 2020 @ 10:30 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share


Author David Brown replied on Jan. 13, 2020 @ 20:00 GMT
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.)

Bookmark and Share
post approved


Author David Brown wrote on Jan. 13, 2020 @ 10:57 GMT
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


Bookmark and Share



Author David Brown wrote on Jan. 13, 2020 @ 20:02 GMT
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


Bookmark and Share
post approved


Author David Brown wrote on Jan. 13, 2020 @ 20:04 GMT
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


Bookmark and Share
post approved


Author David Brown wrote on Jan. 14, 2020 @ 11:58 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share



Author David Brown wrote on Jan. 14, 2020 @ 12:30 GMT
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).

Bookmark and Share


Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Jan. 16, 2020 @ 18:36 GMT
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 »

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author David Brown replied on Jan. 18, 2020 @ 14:09 GMT
"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.

Bookmark and Share



Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.