[Have M-theorists underestimated Fredkin & Wolfram?] - A New Kind of Science: The NKS Forum

A New Kind of Science: The NKS Forum

Pages:1


Have M-theorists underestimated Fredkin & Wolfram?

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)


Posted by: David Brown

In physical reality, are time, space, and energy secondary features derived from Wolfram’s model as described in NKS Chapter 9? Does the most fundamental feature of reality consist of signal propagation caused by an updating parameter acting upon network nodes? Does the Fredkin-Wolfram information process serve as the unique, physically valid computational method for M-theory?
Have M-theorists underestimated Fredkin and Wolfram? Do M-theorists attempt to formulate the quantum theory of gravity within quantum field theory and within the philosophy of continuous spacetime? Are M-theorists now somewhat wrong in their thinking? Is Fredkin correct in believing that nature is finite and digital? Are Fredkin’s ideas 50% correct, 40% metaphorical, and 10% incorrect? Have M-theorists and Fredkin made the mistake of trying to formulate a model of quantum gravity without carefully replacing time, space, and energy by more fundamental finite, digital constructions as done by Wolfram? Have M-theorists omitted an important physical assumption that is implicit in Wolfram’s mobile automaton model of physics?
The string theorists have a theory that appears to be very beautiful, very complex, and I don’t understand it. It gives a quantum theory of gravity that appears to be consistent but doesn’t make any other predictions. … It does not make predictions that have anything to do with experiments that can be done in the laboratory or with observations that could be made in space or from telescopes.
— Sheldon Glashow
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/view-glashow.html
Consider two ideas:
(1) Criticism can identify omissions and errors.
(2) If you can’t explain your theory to a Nobel prize winner, then the problem might be with your theory and not the Nobel prize winner.
Are string-like entities as constructed by M-theorists really composed of continuous approximations of discrete sets of Nambu-time, Nambu-space, and Nambu-energy? Do the discrete sets of Nambu-time, Nambu-space, and Nambu-energy derive from Fredkin time, Fredkin distance, and Fredkin digit transitions below the Planck scale? If it is a good idea to postulate a minimum physical wavelength, then why is it not a good idea to postulate a maximum physical wavelength? Are M-theorists now unable to make important, new predictions with their theory because they allow their string-like entities infinitely many degrees of freedom of vibration?
Consider the Fredkin-Wolfram law of digitized energy:
EVERY PHYSICAL CHANGE IN ENERGY IS AN INTEGRAL MULTIPLE OF THE MINIMUM POSITIVE ENERGY.
Note that there is nothing in M-theory that guarantees the truth of the Fredkin-Wolfram law of digitized energy — is this the fundamental reason that M-theorists are unable to compute predictions from M-theory?
Are theoretical physicists looking for magnetic monopoles on the wrong side of the event horizon? Are guardian magnetic monopoles on the black-hole side of the event horizon? Do guardian magnetic monopoles help to keep matter and antimatter apart? Do guardian magnetic monopoles violate Einstein’s equivalence principle and produce paradigm-breaking photons? Do paradigm-breaking photons explain the GZK paradox and prove that Fredkin and Wolfram are correct in suggesting that nature is finite and digital?




Forum Sponsored by Wolfram Research

© 2004-2013 Wolfram Research, Inc. | Powered by vBulletin 2.3.0 © 2000-2002 Jelsoft Enterprises, Ltd. | Disclaimer
vB Easy Archive Final - Created by Xenon and modified/released by SkuZZy from the Job Openings