[Dark energy, NKS, Einstein, and hit-'em-in-the-gut physics]

[Dark energy, NKS, Einstein, and hit-'em-in-the-gut physics] - A New Kind of Science: The NKS Forum

A New Kind of Science: The NKS Forum

Pages:1

Dark energy, NKS, Einstein, and hit-'em-in-the-gut physics
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: David Brown

Is explaining dark energy the greatest challenge in theoretical physics? Did Einstein like the idea of hidden determinism better than a combination of semi-causality and semi-randomness? Is NKS Chapter 9 the source of a new concept of time needed by M-theorists? Are alternate universes and hidden determinism a rotten apple or a green banana?
The new theory must incorporate the old theory and say something new. — Sheldon Glashow
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/view-glashow.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Glashow
I believe that Edward Witten is a genius, but is he a better physicist than Sheldon Glashow? I answer no. The M-theorists have failed at the level of hit-‘em-in-the-gut physics in explaining their theory to experimentalists.
I say:
Take the new physical principle THE MAXIMUM PHYSICAL WAVELENGTH EQUALS THE PLANCK LENGTH TIMES THE FREDKIN-WOLFRAM CONSTANT and add this principle to M-theory. Then see what happens. Is f(div) theory empirically wrong? — It is definitely testable.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. — Leonardo da Vinci
I am in a simple state. — Edward Fredkin
Is Wolfram’s concept of a finite automaton that runs the multiverse correct or incorrect? Is a finite automaton the ultimate simplicity for explaining physics?
http://wolframscience.com/reference/quick_takes.html
I say that at the level of hit-‘em-in-the-gut physics there are 3 and only 3 possibilities for explaining dark energy:
(D1) There are dark energy scalar fields somehow attached to particles.
(D2) There are weird forces from alternate universes.
(D3) There are dark energy scalar fields somehow attached to black holes or modified black holes.
My opinion is that:
(1) Situation D1 corresponds to a curling-up mechanism for M-theory that predicts particles explaining dark energy.
(2) Situation D2 corresponds to an information transfer mechanism from alternate universes explaining dark energy. Because M-theory is fundamentally correct, this information transfer mechanism works for some type of modified M-theory based upon a digital algebraic system, which might or might not be Wolfram's automaton.
(3) Situation D3 corresponds to a Chapline-Laughlin-type theory of dark energy stars somehow explaining dark energy.
Have M-theorists tended to put too much focus on (D1) and too little focus on (D2) and, perhaps, (D3)? How can modified M-theory explain dark energy, dark matter, the GZK paradox, and the space roar? ABOVE ALL ELSE, WHAT IS THE PHYSICAL INTERPRETATION OF M-THEORY?
Do M-theorists owe it to Fredkin and Wolfram and, perhaps, to themselves to thoroughly investigate NKS Chapter 9? Is a finite automaton for the universe a bold simplification by Fredkin and Wolfram?
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex. … It takes a touch of genius —and a lot of courage— to move in the opposite direction. — Albert Einstein

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