[Dark energy, M-theory, and Dirac-Goldhaber space] - A New Kind of Science: The NKS ForumA New Kind of Science: The NKS Forum
Pages:1
Dark energy, M-theory, and Dirac-Goldhaber space
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: David Brown
Why has Ed Witten not yet given us an explanation of dark energy in terms of M-theory? The answer is simple — HE FORGOT TO PLAY THE BONGO DRUMS!
http://www.scientific-web.com/en/Ph...dFeynman01.html
I think nature’s imagination is so much greater than man’s that she’s never going to let us relax. — Richard Feynman
String theory is the only known generalization of relativistic quantum field theory that makes sense. The framework of special relativity plus quantum mechanics is so rigid that it practically forces quantum field theory upon us. … String theory forces general relativity upon us, whereas standard quantum field theory apparently makes it impossible to incorporate general relativity. … And where critics have had good ideas, they have tended to be absorbed as part of string theory, whether it was black-hole entropy, the holographic principle of quantum gravity, noncommutative geometry or twistor theory. — Edward Witten, “Unravelling String Theory”
http://www.sns.ias.edu/~witten/papers/Unravelling.pdf
Shall Wolfram’s NKS Chapter 9 revolutionize cosmology? Does the space roar empirically confirm the physical existence of the Wolframian updating parameter? If the answer to the preceding question is yes, then I claim that modified M-theory with Wolfram’s automaton yields the physical interpretation of M-theory — this is what I call heretical M-theory; if the answer to the preceding question is no, then I make the following 4 claims: (1) the Fredkin-Wolfram constant is so large that it might as well be infinite, (2) the orthodox M-theory of Seiberg and Witten is empirically confirmed by my quantitative work on the Pioneer anomaly and Milgrom’s Law, (3) neutralinos explain dark matter, and (4) D-brane noise explains dark energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science
A D-brane is a miniature black hole on which strings can end. … D-branes have the unusual property that their positions are measured by matrices. … The non-commutativity of the position matrics gives, if string theory is correct, a new kind of ‘uncertainty’ in physics, though it has not yet been put in such a nice form as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. — Edward Witten, “Black holes and quark confinement”
http://www.sns.ias.edu/~witten/pape...cienceVol81.pdf
The M-theorists think that my heretical M-theory is cuckoo physics — they could be correct. I insist that orthodox M-theory does QUANTITATIVELY explain the Pioneer anomaly and Milgrom’s Law. Neutralinos predicted by M-theory can make it appear that the -1/2 in Einstein’s field equations needs to be replaced by -1/2 + dark-matter-correction-factor/2. This means that the -1/2 is 100% correct, but the dark matter makes it seems that the -1/2 is incorrect.
In this posting I want to suggest that orthodox M-theory has a physical interpretation using neutralinos to explain dark matter, D-brane noise to explain dark energy, and a new concept of Dirac-Goldhaber space to explain how orthodox M-theory explains the Koide formula and the details of D-brane noise. It might be much easier for physicists to think in terms of neutralinos and D-brane noise than in terms of weird forces from alternate universes.
What might the precise meaning of D-brane noise? M-theorists have a definition of D-branes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-brane
Can physicists think of D-brane noise by an analogy between neutralino physics, on one hand, and conductivity and superconductivity, on the other hand? Physicists think of conductivity in terms of electrons and holes in a medium that carries electrons. Can M-theorists think of cosmology in terms of neutralinos and holes in a medium that carries neutralinos?
David Brown’s Belief System Concerning Orthodox M-theory and Heretical M-theory: Graviton mathematics implies that M-theory in some form is the only valid way to unify quantum field theory and general relativity theory. If dark energy is caused by D-brane noise then I believe that: (A) M-theory has a curling-up mechanism that depends upon D-branes and (B) physicists should think about supersymmetry in terms of real superstrings vibrating hypergeometrically with expectation values of geometrized real Feyman diagrams. If dark energy is not caused by D-brane noise then I believe that: (a) M-theory has an information transfer mechanism from alternate universes and (b) physicists should think about supersymmetry as a symmetry within the Fredkin-Wolfram information process with superstrings as virtual unifications of waves and particles with expectation values of virtual Feynman diagrams; virtual Feynman diagrams are actually smoothings of finite, digital structures. The viewpoint of really vibrating superstrings and the viewpoint of virtually defined superstrings as smoothings are alternate viewpoints, which can be mapped into each other with an approximate mathematical isomorphism.
If David Brown’s Belief System is wrong, then should orthodox M-theorists try to find the true explanation underlying dark energy? For the sake of argument, let us assume that David Brown’s Belief System is correct and that D-brane noise is the cause of dark energy. Why does the universe expand? In D-brane-noise M-theory, the universe expands because non-neutralino particles decay into neutralinos, and this decay explains the space roar. In D-brane-noise M-theory, the rate of expansion of the universe is speeding up because Einstein’s field equations have a non-zero cosmological constant; the cosmological constant is nonzero due to the fact that D-branes operate by a physical mechanism that causes a superfluidic model of neutralino transport to present D-brane noise that is somewhat analogous to heat loss in a normal electrical conductor.
According to Wikipedia, “In a normal conductor, an electric current may be visualized as a fluid of electrons moving across a heavy ionic lattice. The electrons are constantly colliding with the ions in the lattice, and during each collision some of the energy carried by the current is absorbed by the lattice and converted into heat, which is essentially the vibrational kinetic energy of the lattice ions. As a result, the energy carried by the current is constantly being dissipated. This is the phenomenon of electrical resistance.
The situation is different in a superconductor. In a conventional superconductor, the electronic fluid cannot be resolved into individual electrons. Instead, it consists of bound ''pairs'' of electrons known as Cooper pairs. This pairing is caused by an attractive force between electrons from the exchange of phonons. Due to quantum mechanics, the energy spectrum of this Cooper pair fluid possesses an ''energy gap'', meaning there is a minimum amount of energy Δ''E'' that must be supplied in order to excite the fluid. Therefore, if Δ''E'' is larger than the thermal energy of the lattice, given by ''kT'', where ''k'' is Boltzmann's constant and ''T'' is the temperature, the fluid will not be scattered by the lattice. The Cooper pair fluid is thus a superfluid, meaning it can flow without energy dissipation. “
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconductivity
In D-brane-noise M-theory, there may be matter/antimatter Cooperized neutralino pairs that are somehow attracted to each other. In any case, there should be a Dirac-Goldhaber space that replaces Minkowski space. The role of Minkowski space is to explain the constancy of the speed of light in terms of the Lorenztian geometry of spacetime. The role of Dirac-Goldhaber space is to do accomplish two main things: (1) provide a reason that superstrings have a separation into low, medium, and high energy-density levels, allowing orthodox M-theory to incorporate the mathematics for the Koide formula and (2) provide a topological and geometrical framework for a theory that uses neutralinos and holes in a medium that carries neutralinos; the point is to provide a specialized space that explain how D-brane noise is the draining of neutralino kinetic energy from the observable universe to D-branes that support the observable universe. Why do I use the term “Dirac-Goldhaber space”? The answer is Gerald Rosen’s paper “Heuristic Development of a Dirac-Goldhaber Model for Lepton and Quark Structures” and the mathematics found in Carl Brannen’s “The Lepton Masses”.
http://home.comcast.net/~gerald-rosen/heuristicmpla.pdf Gerald Rosen’s paper
http://www.brannenworks.com/MASSES2.pdf
Can M-theorist develop energy-density levels in Dirac-Goldhaber space by using the AdS/CFT correspondence and ideas of Piotr Zenczykowski on the Harari-Shupe preon model? The idea would be to embed into M-theory the mathematics used by Koide and the preon-motivated mathematics used by Gerald Rosen, Carl Brannen, and others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdS/CFT_correspondence
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008arXiv0803.0223Z “The Harari-Shupe preon model and nonrelativistic quantum phase space”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preon
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