[NKS, M-theory, and Lestone's heuristic string theory] - A New Kind of Science: The NKS ForumA New Kind of Science: The NKS Forum
Pages:1
NKS, M-theory, and Lestone's heuristic string theory
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: David Brown
The paradigm shift rate is doubling every decade. — Ray Kurzweil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil
According to Wikipedia, “The thesis of ''A New Kind of Science'' is twofold: that the nature of computation must be explored experimentally, and that the results of these experiments have great relevance to understanding the natural world.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science
Is NKS Chapter 9 a basic part of paradigm shifts in our contemporary world? Is modified M-theory with Wolfram’s automaton essential for understanding cosmology? Is cosmology now in the middle of a paradigm shift? Are M-theory and the ideas of Lestone and Milgrom important in understanding how our universe functions?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory
We see in galaxies phenomenological laws that are as robust as Kepler’s laws were, when they were recognized in the solar system, and which are universal. Does it make more sense to deduce that such regularities somehow resulted from a complicated and haphazard formation history of galaxies, or to accept that they are inevitable consequences of some appropriate underlying dynamics? — Mordehai Milgrom, “DM or MD?”, p. 14
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.5122v1 “MD or DM? Modified dynamics at low accelerations versus dark matter” by M. Milgrom, 2010, Proceedings of Science
Is NKS Chapter 9 an essential foundation for understanding cosmology and, in particular, the basis of Milgrom’s work? Is the reaction of the M-theorists to Milgrom’s work an example of the paradigm-momentum syndrome or the paradigm-resistance-to-shift syndrome?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift
Is string theory the key to calculating the fine structure constant?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant
According to the paper “Physics based calculation of the fine structure constant” by J. P. Lestone, “the fine structure constant calculated here suggests that the forces between fundamental particles are due to the exchange of bosons between particles having both a surface area and an effective temperature, and the internal structure of electrons is string-like with an internal length scale close to 3 times the particle’s circumference.”
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics.gen-ph/0703151v6 “Physics based calculation of the fine structure constant” by J. P. Lestone
Lestone introduced physical hypotheses to calculate the fine structure constant:
(a) The photon emission and absorption area A on an electron is controlled by a length scale f.
(b) The electron has a corresponding effective mean temperature T and the relationship between T and f is the same as the relationship between the Planck temperature and the Planck length.
(c) The absorption across section A/4 should be associated with a corresponding stimulated emission cross section (A/4) * exp(-epsilon), where epsilon is the energy of the incident photon relative to the temperature of the system.
(d) When a photon is absorbed by an electron there is a probability of exp(-epsilon) that a stimulated emission occurs.
(e) An electron consists of a loop of string with its length moving on the 2-dimensional surface of a nearly spherical membrane with radius f.
(f) The string’s length is n times the sphere’s circumference and this length is long enough so that, in a short time interval, the string can cover most of the string’s surface.
(g) The finite length of the string generates an uncertainty in the effective length of the particle, and this temperature uncertainty is related to the time it takes for a signal to travel the length of the string.
Is Lestone’s work an important milestone (or should we say kilometerstone or parsecstone) in string theory? According to Lestone, the use of Lestone’s hypotheses and Lestone’s string-electron-constant (with value = 2.980192) yield the inverse of the fine structure constant to the limits of known experimental accuracy. Unfortunately, Lestone’s string-electron-constant, 2.980192, is introduced for the purpose of correcting a prediction that is slightly inaccurate. One source of error in Lestone’s approximation is that the surface of the electron is assumed to be precisely defined when the temperature uncertainty ∆T is calculated. According to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, if the string is known to be precisely confined to a spherical surface, then the uncertainty in the energy of the string relative to the normal unit vector of the spherical surface should be incorporated into the estimate of the temperature uncertainty. Therefore in Lestone’s estimate of ∆T/T in equation (7) of page 2, ∆T/T should be replaced by (∆T/T) * ( 1 + ∫ (uncertainty-in-string-location-L-relative-to-the-normal-unit-vector) * P(dL)) , where h-bar = c = 1 and P is a probability measure on the string-locations confined to the spherical surface. This amounts to replacing Lestone’s sigma(T) = 1/( 4 * n * pi) by modified-sigma(T) = (1/(4 * n * pi)) * (1 + 1/(4 * n * 4 * pi) ) because of two reasons. The first reason is when we integrate Hausdorff measure over the spherical surface with radius R we get 4 * pi * R**2. The second reason is that uncertainty-in-string-location-L-relative-to-the-normal-unit-vector * P(dL) = (n * 4) * dL where dL represents pi * (the string length along the normal unit vector). (Remember that Lestone’s string length is 2 * pi * n * R with respect to the radius R for the electron surface and that the uncertainty in location can be directed precisely away from the spherical center or precisely toward the spherical center.) What is needed is to break up the excess (∆ momentum) * (∆ position) into little pieces on the spherical surface and then pull the (∆ momentum) out as a factor while integrating the (∆ position) along the normal unit vector everywhere on the spherical surface. Because a one-dimensional vibrating superstring is not part of validated theory, we have to make questionable assumptions in the precise use of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. To make a scientific argument the assumptions and the derivation need to be made precise. The basic idea might be to assume ∆x = 1/∆(p) and that the vibrating string should be treated like a particle oscillating on both sides of the surface.
Let me attempt to explain the correction more clearly. Say that modified-sigma (T) = ∫ sigma(T) * (1 + correction-term(x,y)) P(dxdy) , where the integral is over a 2-sphere of radius 1 and P is a probability measure on the 2-sphere. Then correction-term(x,y) = (∆U-rel-sigma-E(x,y)) = (1/sigma(T)) * (1/∆position(x,y)) because by the Heisenberg principle (sigma(T) * ∆U-rel-sigma-E(x,y)) * ∆position(x,y) =1 for all x,y and because the integral of the probability measure P over the 2-sphere of radius 1 is 1. Assume that for all x,y, ∆position(x,y) = 2 * string-length / pi because the string oscillates on both sides of the surface and because there is a change-of-variable with respect to pi in the integration. In other words, x and y vary from 0 to pi and not from 0 to 1 after the change-of-variable. What is the physical justification for this change-of-variable? The unmodified sigma(T) measures the energy uncertainty with respect to the 2-dimensional surface which oscillates as a 2-sphere — this is the primary uncertainty. The sigma(T) * correction-term(x,y) measures the energy uncertainty with respect to the normal unit vector along the diameter which has length 2 as opposed to the circumference which has length 2 * pi — this is the secondary uncertainty which is measured relative to the diameter and not relative to the circumference. The primary uncertainty in energy is sigma(T) , for all x,y, the term ∆U-rel-sigma-E(x,y) represents an energy-uncertainty correction factor relative to sigma(T), and we use Bayes’ theorem to calculate the product of two independent uncertainties in energy when we calculate the correction-term(x,y), for all x,y.
A molecular energy surface has uncertainties derived from the individual uncertainties for the molecules, but Lestone’s hypothesis assumes that the string energy surface lacks the individual spikes in energy density found in the molecular energy surface. Thus the calculation of sigma(T) and modified-sigma(T) belong to the realm of new physics beyond standard quantum field theory.
Consider 4 possible axioms:
Axiom 1: An electron singularity consists of a string with 3 loops confined to the surface of a 2-sphere with diameter equal to the Planck length.
Axiom 2: Gravitation keeps the electron singularity from expanding, and D-brane force keeps the diameter of the electron singularity from shrinking below the Planck length.
Axiom 3: The uncertainty in the position of the string loop on the electron singularity surface can be calculated by calculating the total of the energy uncertainty of the 2-sphere multiplied by the energy uncertainty in the string loop relative to the uncertainty in the positional uncertainty of the normal unit vector for each possible position of the normal unit vector on the surface.
Axiom 4: The surface of the electron singularity does have not a temperature in the sense of quantum field theory but instead has the string-theoretical analogue of temperature, which is merely a calculation device that can be used in quantum electrodynamics.
***************
There is another way of considering the problem of modifying Lestone's sigma(T). If we modify the Lestone scale length f by adding an uncertainty factor ∆f, then we increase the amount of (4 pi) * ( f + ∆f)**2 = (4 pi) * f**2 + (8 * pi)* f * (∆f) + negligible term. Thus f**2 should be replaced by f **2 + 2 * f * (∆f) and f/f should be replaced by (f * (1 + ∆f))/f) in the formula number (7) on page 2 in Lestone’s paper. Therefore, in reference to formula (7), modified-sigma(T) - Lestone’s-original-sigma(T) = 1/(n*4*pi) + ∆f/(n*4*pi) -1/(n*4*pi) = ∆f/(n*4*pi). By putting ∆f/(12 * pi) = 1/(2.980192 * 4 * pi) we get ∆f = 3/2.980192 = 1.006647… to explain the use of Lestone’s electron-string-constant. However, this is an ad hoc argument that is not physically justified like the normal unit vector approach using the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
According to Wolfram Alpha, (3/2.980192 - (1 + (1/(48 * pi)) * (1 + 1/( 14 * pi**3)))) = -1.81090 * 10**-7 — however this leads to a slight deviation from Lestone’s electron-string-constant. We have 2.980192 - 3/(1 + (1/(48 * pi)) * (1 + 1/( 14 * pi**3))) = 5.36119 * 10**-7 while 2.980192 - 3/((1 + (1/(48 * pi)) * (1 + 0/( 14 * pi**3))) = -.0000446916. This discrepancy leads to 2.980237 instead of Lestone’s electron-string-constant 2.980192. In other words, the normal unit vector approach using the Heisenberg uncertainty principle does not quite yield Lestone’s electron-string-constant.
Can Lestone’s heuristic string theory be successfully extended to other calculations in quantum electrodynamics?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics
Is the reaction of the M-theorists to Lestone’s work an example of the NIH-syndrome (Not-Invented Here syndrome)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_Invented_Here
Why is the loop of string confined to the surface of an electron singularity? Perhaps the electron singularity is the loop of string. Gravitation might attract the loop of string to the center of mass of the electron singularity while D-brane force prevents any 2-dimensional sphere of energy from having a diameter less than the Planck length. Perhaps in M-theory there are basically only three possibilities for a massive elementary particle: a 3-sphere particle singularity for the quarks and fermionic hadrons, a 2-sphere particle singularity for the leptons, and a 1-sphere particle singularity for the massive bosons.
Posted by: David Brown
In Lestone’s model, an electron consists of 3 loops of one vibrating superstring confined on the 2-dimensional surface of a 3-ball.
Consider the following:
HYPOTHESIS of the generalized Lestone model for the proton:
A proton consists of 9 loops of one vibrating superstring confined on the 3-dimensional 3-hypersurface of a 4-ball.
What might the preceding hypothesis imply? The answer is unclear but note that
(9/2.980192) * ((proton mass)/(electron mass))**.25/(2 * pi**2) = 1.001, approximately, according to Wolfram Alpha.
3 * (1 + 1/(18 pi**2)) * ((proton mass)/(electron mass))**.25/(2 * pi**2) = 1, approximately.
Posted by: David Brown
“WMAP measures the relative density of baryonic and non-baryonic matter to an accuracy of better than a few percent of the overall density. … WMAP determines that the universe is flat, from which it follows that the mean energy density in the universe is equal to the critical density (within a 1% margin of error). This is equivalent to a mass density of 9.9 * 10**-30 g/cm**3, which is equivalent to only 5.9 protons per cubic meter.”
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov./universe/uni_matter.html NASA’s “WMAP - Content of the Universe” website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model
Assume that we call the total mass-energy of the universe that portion of the universe’s energy derived from standard mass-energy and also from dark matter mass-energy with dark energy being excluded. If we treat the total mass-energy of the big bang as represented by a unified giant proton having the form of a 3-dimensional hypersurface of a 4-ball with radius of the Planck length and with the 3-dimensional hypersurface having a very, very long loopy string of length equal to (2 * pi * Planck length) * (81.6 billion years)/(Planck time) then what? Assume the very, very loopy string has total length equal to (2 * pi) * Fredkin-Wolfram-constant * (Planck length), where Fredkin-Wolfram-constant = (81.6 billion years)/(Planck time). Assume that each loop has a fixed mass-energy and that this fixed mass-energy of each individual loop is equal to (Planck mass) * (c**2) times some proportionality constant. If we assume that the very, very long loopy string has mass-energy equal to (Planck mass) * ((81.6 billion years)/ (Planck time)) * Lestone-adjustment-factor then we get an estimate for the total mass-energy of the big bang:
ESTIMATE1: (Planck mass) * (c**2) * ((81.6 billion years)/(Planck time)) * ((electron mass)/(proton mass))**2 = 2.769 * 10**64 joule. (The idea is that we are substituting a giant proton for an electron in Lestone’s argument and we need to adjust the Planck mass so that it can substitute for the electron mass in Lestone’s argument. We also replace the n in Lestone’s argument by the Fredkin-Wolfram-constant times a scaling factor.)
Does modified M-theory with Wolfram’s automaton yield an estimate for the total mass-energy of the universe? If we assume that 3/8 of the total energy-density of the universe is (standard matter + dark matter) with 5/8 being dark energy and that our universe is 13.7 billion years old, then according to the theory of modified M-theory with Wolfram’s automaton, we get an estimate for the total mass-energy of the universe as follows:
ESTIMATE2: c**2 *(3 * (9.9/8) * 10**-30) * (2 * pi**2) * (13.7/81.6)**3 * (c * (billion year))**3 * gram/(centimeter**3) = 2.634 * 10**64 joule.
Are both the preceding estimates for the total mass-energy of the universe wrong? As of March 30, 2011 CE, if we ask Wolfram Alpha “What is the total mass-energy of the universe?” we get the answer “2 * 10**69 joules”. We have:
ESTIMATE3: (sqrt(15) * 10**-5) * (3/8) * 2 * 10**69 joule = 2.9 * 10**64 joule.
I claim that the Rañada-Milgrom effect explains the discrepancies found in the MOND-related cosmological puzzles and that Wolfram’s updating parameter explains the space roar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_roar
Why is ESTIMATE3 important? It might indicate that the explanation of cosmological inflation consists of the Rañada-Milgrom effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)
Posted by: David Brown
The quark masses are important in the Standard Model.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
According to Wolfram Alpha, we have the following approximations:
((down quark mass)/(electron mass))**4 - pi**8 = 0
((up quark mass)/(electron mass))**4/(( pi**4) * ((16 - 1/3) * pi**2)**.25) = 1
((strange quark mass)/(electron mass)) / ((pi**4) * ((2 - 2/3 + 1/81) * pi**2)**.25) = .9998
sqrt((charm quark mass)/(electron mass)) /( 5 * pi**2) = 1.002
sqrt((top quark mass)/(electron mass)) / ( 16 * pi**2 * (2.1 * pi**2 * 9)**.25) = 1
sqrt((top quark mass)/(electron mass)) / ((34 -16/25) * pi**2.5) = 1
((top quark mass)/(electron mass)) / ((169/50)**2 * pi**9) = 1.00103
sqrt((bottom quark mass)/(electron mass)) - ( 2 * pi**2 * (.5 * pi**2 * (9**2 +9))**.25) = .04317
((bottom quark mass)/(electron mass))**2 /( 8 * pi**10 * (9**2 +9)) = 1.002 …
Does any of this have physical significance?
*********
Also note that:
(16/13) * (25/23) * ((muon mass)/(electron mass))/(( pi**4) * ( (2/3) * pi**4)**.25) = 1, approximately.
((1+ 1/9)/(2 -1/9)) * ((tauon mass)/(muon mass))/pi**2 = 1, approximately.
((fine structure constant)**2)(top quark mass)/((18 + 3/20) * electron mass) = 1.00019…
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0603201v1 “The top quark to electron mass ratio …” by M. H. MacGregor
What are the empirical relationships among the masses of quarks and leptons?
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/930235/files/0602118.pdf “Empirical Relationships among Lepton and Quark Masses” by A. Breakstone, 2006
What are the theoretical issues relevant for the determination of quark masses?
http://pdg.ihep.su/2010/reviews/rpp...uark-masses.pdf “Quark Masses” by A. V. Manohar & C. T. Sachrajda, 2010
Posted by: David Brown
How might Lestone’s analysis be justified and/or modified? What is string theory all about? Consider 3 hypotheses:
(1) Classical mechanics deals with real energy.
(2) Quantum mechanics deals with a mixture of real and virtual energy.
(3) String theory deals almost entirely with virtual energy, because quantum mechanics is so successful. String theory explains the early universe, dark matter, dark energy, the fundamental dimensionless constants in the Standard Model, and quantum gravitational waves, but not much else. Dark matter is virtual energy with zero inertial mass-energy and positive gravitational energy. Dark energy is virtual energy with zero inertial mass-energy and negative gravitational energy. Virtual mass-energy becomes real mass-energy if and only if the virtual mass-energy is explicitly or implicitly measured by Wolfram’s mobile automaton. An electron singularity has an approximation by Lestone’s method because NKS-modified M-theory can be approximately understood by Lestone’s model.
ELECTRON STRING-SURFACE UNCERTAINTY HYPOTHESIS: According to Bayes’s theorem, if A, B are events, measurements, situations, or conditions, then Probability(A) = Probability(A, given B) * Probability(A and B). If for the electron singularity as a probabilistic 2-sphere we calculate the virtual energy uncertainty ∆E, then ∆(E|total-uncertainty) = ∆(E|surface-uncertainty) * ∆(E|surface-uncertainty and normal-unit-vector-uncertainty). We assume that, even though the 3-looped string has total length 3 * pi, the string can only extend a length of ± 3 along the normal unit vectors of the 2-sphere.******WHY THIS? Why not use a length of ± 3* pi or ± 3/2 or +3 * pi along the normal unit vector? The only real answer is that a length of ±3 along the normal unit vector seems to give roughly the correct answer.*******
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes’_theorem
What is the 3-looped string's physical behavior on the virtual surface?
POSSIBLE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ELECTRON STRING-SURFACE UNCERTAINTY HYPOTHESIS: Replace the electron singularity in a Feynman diagram by an electron 3-loop virtual surface having a scale length f. Each loop is a fixed circle. Two loops are longitudinal and intersect at four 90º spherical angles to form the spin axis of the electron virtual surface; these two loops spin rapidly and also expand and contract at nearly the speed of light. The third loop spins rapidly and also expands contracts at nearly the speed of light while remaining as an equatorial line to the two longitudinal loops.
ATTEMPTED EXPLANATION FOR THE UNCERTAINTY DERIVATION: Say that modified-sigma (T) = ∫ sigma(T) * (1 + correction-term(x,y)) P(dxdy) , where the integral is over a 2-sphere of radius 1 and P is a probability measure on the 2-sphere. Then correction-term(x,y) = (∆U-rel-sigma-E(x,y)) = (1/sigma(T)) * (1/∆position(x,y)) because by the Heisenberg principle (sigma(T) * ∆U-rel-sigma-E(x,y)) * ∆position(x,y) =1 for all x,y and because the integral of the probability measure P over the 2-sphere of radius 1 is 1. Assume that for all x,y, ∆position(x,y) = 2 * string-length / pi because the string oscillates on both sides of the surface and because there is a change-of-variable with respect to pi in the integration. In other words, x and y vary from 0 to pi and not from 0 to 1 after the change-of-variable. What is the physical justification for this change-of-variable? The unmodified sigma(T) measures the energy uncertainty with respect to the 2-dimensional surface which spins as a 2-sphere — this is the primary uncertainty determined by THE VIRTUAL SPIN AXIS or the existence of the VIRTUAL SURFACE. The sigma(T) * correction-term(x,y) measures the energy uncertainty with respect to the normal unit vector along the diameter which has length 2 as opposed to the circumference which has length 2 * pi — this is the secondary uncertainty which is measured relative to the diameter and not relative to the circumference. The secondary uncertainty is determined by THE OSCILLATION OF THE VIRTUAL SURFACE. The primary uncertainty in energy is sigma(T) , for all x,y, the term ∆U-rel-sigma-E(x,y) represents an energy-uncertainty correction factor relative to sigma(T), and we use Bayes’ theorem to calculate the product of two independent uncertainties in energy when we calculate the correction-term(x,y), for all x,y.
POSSIBLE TERTIARY UNCERTAINTY. In my original posting on this topic, my idea was to replace Lestone’s sigma(T) by modified-sigma(T) = sigma(T) * (1 + 1/(48 pi)). But note that modified-sigma(T) = sigma(T) * (1 + (1/(48 * pi)) * (1 + 1/(14 * pi**3))) leads to a better match to the empirical value of the inverse of the fine structure constant. According to Wolfram Alpha, (14. * pi**3)/(48 * pi**2) = .916298... Let us apply Bayes’s theorem twice instead of just once. If we include the uncertainty of the lateral position of the string at a 90º angle relative to the normal unit vector as the normal unit vector varies on the virtual surface of the electron singularity, then we get a modification of Lestone’s sigma(T), which consists of multipling by a factor for the secondary uncertainty for the normal unit vector with respect to the surface itself and also by a factor for the tertiary uncertainty with respect to the normal unit vector. Thus we get tertiary-modified-sigma(T) = sigma(T) * (1 + (1/(48 * pi)) * (1 + 1/(48 * pi**2))) in the modification of Lestone’s original sigma(T).
Posted by: David Brown
Contemporary developments in theoretical physics suggest that another revolution may be in progress, through which a new source of “fuzziness” may enter physics, and spacetime itself may be reinterpreted as an approximate, derived concept. — Edward Witten, “Reflections on the Fate of Spacetime”, p. 24
http://www.sns.ias.edu/~witten/papers/Reflections.pdf
Apart from the general predictions that I have stressed, string theory also leads in a simple way to elegant and qualitatively correct models that combine quantum gravity and the other known forces in nature, recovering the main features of the standard model. To improve these constructions further, the most vital need is probably to understand the vanishing (or extreme smallness) of the cosmological constant (the energy density of the vacuum) after supersymmetry breaking. That remains out of reach. — Edward Witten, “Magic, Mystery, and Matrix”, p. 1128
The idea of replacing point particles by strings sounds so naïve that it may be hard to believe that it is truly fundamental. But in fact this naïve-sounding step is probably as basic as introducing complex numbers in mathematics. — Edward Witten, “Magic, Mystery, and Matrix”, p. 1127
http://www.sns.ias.edu/~witten/papers/mmm.pdf
If strings really are fundamental to understanding the foundations of physics, then what might be a fundamental, new, and empirically testable prediction of superstring theory (or M-theory)? Is there some sharp, decisive empirical test of M-theory? I claim that the answer to the preceding question is yes. Are Lestone’s ideas essential for the development of M-theory? Does the explanation of the GZK paradox consist of paradigm-breaking photons generated by inverse Compton scattering from relativistic jets that empirically confirm M-theory? What, if anything, does Wolfram’s “A New Kind of Science” have to do with M-theory? Is M-theory empirically valid in ways that will convince most physicists? Does dark matter really exist? Is dark matter real, or is dark matter an apparent effect due to anomalous gravitation? Is Milgrom’s Modified Newton Dynamics (MOND) the key to the empirical proof of M-theory?
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/ The MOND pages
I claim that M-theory with irreducible quantum agnosticism implies that dark matter really does exist, the Rañada-Milgrom effect is apparently valid because neutralinos are extremely difficult to detect, the equivalence principle is 100% correct for virtual mass-energy, and the prediction of the space roar profile is false. I claim that M-theory with hidden determinism implies that dark matter does not really exist, the Rañada-Milgrom effect is really valid, the equivalence principle fails badly for virtual mass-energy, and the prediction of the space roar profile is true. I claim that M-theory is empirically valid if and only if the Rañada-Milgrom apparent-or-real effect is empirically valid.
The preceding 3 claims might seem bizarre. What might justify such claims? Is Wolfram’s “A New Kind of Science” (NKS) Chapter 9 correct?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science
Does NKS Chapter 9 suggest a computational method for M-theory? Consider the following ideas:
Wolfram’s Cosmological Principle: The maximum physical wavelength is the Planck length times the Fredkin-Wolfram constant.
The Ambiguous Limit Cosmological Principle: Seiberg-Witten M-theory is the ambiguous limit of modified M-theory with Wolfram’s automaton as the Fredkin-Wolfram constant approaches infinity.
The Causality Conjecture: Instantaneous correlation at a distance is so foreign to the concept of physical causality that the empirical validity of quantum entanglement implies that quantum theory is an approximation to a deterministic theory in which energy and spacetime are merely approximations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
The M-theoretical Dichotomy Hypothesis: If M-theory is empirically valid and quantum agnosticism is not a consequence of hidden determinism, then Seiberg-Witten M-theory with the string theory landscape is empirically valid. If M-theory is empirically valid in some form and quantum agnosticism is a consequence of hidden determinism, then modified M-theory with Wolfram’s automaton is empirically valid.
Witten’s Cosmological Principle: The existence of gravitons and plausible physical hypotheses imply that M-theory in some form is the only valid way to unify gravitation and quantum field theory by means of a mathematical theory that predicts gravitons.
The Dark Matter (DM) versus Hidden Determinism (HD) Hypothesis: Real dark matter exists if and only if quantum agnosticism is not reducible to hidden determinism.
Is the DM versus HD Hypothesis actually testable?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
In 1983 Milgrom introduced Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) to explain problems arising from astronomical observations of rotation curves in galaxies. Is the correct interpretation of MOND an empirical confirmation of M-theory in some form? Is the Rañada-Milgrom real-or-apparent effect the basis of the correct interpretation of MOND?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modifi...tonian_Dynamics (MOND)
“I think few people appreciate that the main difficulty for DM is that the host of regularities pointed out by MOND, if taken as just a summary of how DM behaves and interacts with normal matter, suggests that these two matter components are coupled and correlated very strongly in many ways. … if MOND does turn out to have some truth to it, the fact that it has encountered so much opposition will just show how nontrivial a thought it was.” — Mordehai Milgrom, interview entitled “Dark-matter heretic”, American Scientist, Jan.-Feb. 2003, Vol. 91, #1, p. 1
http://www.americanscientist.org/is...-matter-heretic
Does the only valid path to explaining dark matter consist of a huge, M-theoretical revolution in the foundations of physics? I claim that there are two basic plausible physical interpretations for M-theory and both of these interpretations predict the Rañada-Milgrom effect and explain dark matter remarkably well. (See “Dark matter: why should Rañada and Milgrom win the Nobel prize?” nks forum applied nks.) I conjecture: In M-theory with neutralino physics, neutralinos are almost all of the cold dark matter, neutralino pairs have an APPARENT absence of inertial mass-energy due to a bizarre Fermi pairing involving D-brane force, and dark energy is D-brane noise. I also conjecture that NKS Chapter 9 is the finitary, deterministic approximation of Seiberg-Witten M-theory, while Seiberg-Witten M-theory is a smoothing of part of the mechanism of Wolfram’s mobile automaton. I claim that Fredkin and Wolfram represent the “Einstein side” and Seiberg and Witten represent the “Bohr side” in the Bohr-Einstein debate on the foundations of quantum theory. I predict that M-theory will carry the Bohr-Einstein debate to a new level with many confirmed empirical predictions from M-theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr-Einstein_debate
Are physicists and astronomers baffled by dark energy and dark matter because the M-theoretical revolution has not yet occurred?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
Consider the following 3 conjectures:
(1) Seiberg-Witten M-theory, or some slightly modified form of M-theory, is empirically valid if and only the Rañada-Milgrom effect is empirically valid.
(2) Modified M-theory with Wolfram’s automaton is empirically valid if and only if the prediction of the space roar profile is correct.
(3) M-theory is empirically wrong if and only if superstring tension has a complicated form that requires the replacement of Einstein’s general relativity theory by a more complicated Lagrangian gravitational theory.
Is the Rañada-Milgrom apparent-or-real effect approximately equivalent to Milgrom’s Law? According to Milgrom, dark matter probably does not exist because it would have to be weakly interactive with respect to the electromagnetic and strong interactions and also weirdly interactive with respect to gravitation. What is the explanation for Milgrom’s Law in terms of fundamental physics? Should cosmologists consider what I call the Rañada-Milgrom apparent-or-real effect, i.e., the -1/2 in the standard form of Einstein’s field equations should be replaced by -1/2 + sqrt((60±10)/4) * 10**-5 ?
Consider 3 alternatives with respect to M-theory:
(1) With orthodox M-theory and unmodified general relativity theory, what might explain dark matter and dark energy? Some unknown force with pairing of neutralinos across alternate universes might explain dark matter within orthodox M-theory. D-brane noise might explain dark energy — in other words, dark energy is a by-product of the D-brane interactions that maintain the structure of the multiverse. Within orthodox M-theory, the Rañada-Milgrom effect should be apparent but not real, and Einstein’s equivalence principle is 100% correct for both real and virtual mass-energy. The concept of the string theory landscape is correct, and the concept of Wolfram’s multiverse automaton is either wrong or physically irrelevant.
(2) With heretical M-theory that modifies general relativity theory according to Wolfram’s automaton, the Rañada-Milgrom effect would be real. The equivalence principle would be 100% correct for real energy and totally wrong for virtual mass-energy. Dark matter is virtual mass-energy that has zero inertial mass-energy and positive gravitational mass-energy. Dark energy is virtual mass-energy that has zero inertial mass-energy and negative gravitational mass-energy. Virtual mass-energy becomes real mass-energy when the virtual mass-energy is directly or indirectly measured by Wolfram’s automaton. The maximum physical wavelength is the Planck length times the Fredkin-Wolfram constant. Orthodox M-theory is the ambiguous limit of heretical M-theory as the Fredkin-Wolfram constant approaches infinity. If M-theory is wrong, then heretical M-theory is wrong. If the prediction of the space roar profile is wrong, then heretical M-theory is wrong.
(3) M-theory needs to be drastically modified or discarded. In this case the Rañada-Milgrom apparent-or-real effect is not correct. Some theory such as the Milgrom-Bekenstein BIMOND theory or the Chapline-Laughlin theory of dark energy stars should approximately replace general relativity theory. M-theory in its present form needs drastic modification.
Is the Rañada-Milgrom apparent-or-real effect worth considering?
Hypothesis 1. The explanation of dark matter consists of the Rañada-Milgrom real-or-apparent effect together with the heuristically distorted model of general relativity theory (HDMOGRT). There are two fundamentally different cases for the Rañada-Milgrom real-or-apparent effect. In case 1, dark matter consists of clouds or halos of dark matter particles that are extremely difficult to detect, and the -1/2 in Einstein’s field equations is 100% correct; however, because of the dark matter particles there is an apparent distortion in Einstein’s field equations so that the -1/2 apparently needs to be replaced by -1/2 + dark-matter-compensation-constant. In case 2, dark matter consists of some unknown, weird, or funny distortion in Einstein’s field equations and dark matter particles do not explain such a distortion; in this case, there is a real distortion in Einstein’s field equations so that the -1/2 needs to be replaced by -1/2 + FF/2, where FF is funny-factor based upon some funny, weird, or bizarre new theory of gravity. HDMOGRT consists of the heuristic model which combines the two mutually contradictory cases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
Professor Antonio F. Rañada in his Jan. 2005 paper entitled “The Pioneer anomaly as acceleration of the clocks” says that the frequency of photons increases uniformly and adiabatically because of the expansion of the universe and his phenomenological theory; whereas, I say that the frequency of the photons increases uniformly and adiabatically either because of my physical interpretation of modified M-theory with Wolfram’s automaton or because of my physical interpretation of Seiberg-Witten M-theory with neutralino physics.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0410084 “The Pioneer anomaly as acceleration of the clocks”
Hypothesis 2. The Pioneer anomaly is a consequence of dark matter as explained by the Rañada-Milgrom real-or-apparent effect. The real effect or the apparent effect would both support a heuristically distorted model of modified general relativity theory (HDMOGRT), in which the -1/2 in Einstein’s field equations is replaced by -1/2 + Rañada-constant/2, where Rañada-constant is roughly equal to sqrt(60) * 10**-5. The particular value of Rañada-constant comes from the Pioneer anomaly data. From the heuristic model of general relativity there is an anomalous Newtonian approximation for gravitational force (but not non-gravitational force):
Gravitational force = (1 + Rañada-constant) * mass * acceleration, where under Hypothesis 1 with dark-matter-compensation-constant, the dark matter force is apparent rather than real and is merely a result of the extreme difficulty in detecting dark matter particles. But under Hypothesis 1 with funny factor FF, the altered gravitational force is real and due to an unknown, weird, or funny distortion in Einstein’s field equations. In either case, the Rañada effect might lead to the valid physical interpretation of M-theory.
http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2010-4 review of Pioneer anomaly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
Hypothesis 3. Suppose that dark matter particles are the explanation for dark matter. Suppose F is gravitational force and the magnitude of the gravitational acceleration a is large relative to (µ * a(0) )/m. Let a(0) be Milgrom’s acceleration constant. We have
F = m * a * ((m * a)/(µ * a(0)))) if and only if
F * ( 1 / sqrt(1 – (2(µ * a(0))/(m * a))**2)) = m * a if only if
Einsteinian-redshift*(1 + dark-matter-compensation-factor/2) = m * a,
provided that 2(µ * a(0))/(m * a) = dark-matter-compensation-factor and we choose physical units in which gravitational redshift = Einsteinian gravitational acceleration due to gravitational force. Therefore, Milgrom’s acceleration law indicates that heuristically distorted model of general relativity theory (HDMOGRT) with either dark-matter-compensation-factor or the funny factor FF is observationally correct. In other words, the Rañada-Milgrom real-or-apparent effect explains Milgrom’s Law. Is the preceding reasoning wrong?
Posted by: David Brown
The development of the Standard Model did not involve any changes in our conception of what was acceptable as a basis for physical theories. Indeed, the Standard Model can be regarded as just quantum electrodynamics writ large. Similarly, when the effort to extend the Standard Model to include gravity led to widespread interest in string theory, we expected to score the success or failure of this theory in the same way as for the Standard Model: String theory would be a success if its symmetry principles and consistency conditions led to a successful prediction of the free parameters of the Standard Model. Now we may be at a new turning point, a radical change in what we accept as a legitimate foundation for a physical theory. The current excitement is of course a consequence of the discovery of a vast number of solutions of string theory, beginning with the work of Bousso and Polchinski. — Steven Weinberg, “Living in the Multiverse”, p. 2
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0511037v1 “Living in the Multiverse” 2005
I don’t think that it has ever happened that a theory that has the kind of mathematical appeal that string theory has has turned out to be wrong. … And in any case I don’t see any alternative to string theory. I don’t see any other way of bringing gravity into the same general theoretical framework as all the other forces of nature. — Steven Weinberg
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/view-weinberg.html
Is M-theory (or superstring theory) closely connected to “A New Kind of Science” (NKS)? Does Lestone’s heuristic string theory work for Seiberg-Witten M-theory and also for modified M-theory with Wolfram’s automaton? Does the Eötvös experiment prove that the equivalence principle is true for both real mass-energy and virtual mass-energy? Is NKS Chapter 9 empirically valid if and only virtual mass-energy has zero inertial mass-energy and nonzero gravitational mass-energy? If NKS Chapter 9 is empirically valid, then is there likely to be a decisive empirical test for it? If M-theory tells us something new and important about physics or cosmology, then what precisely is it? Are there 2 main possibilities for cosmology: (1) modified M-theory with NKS Chapter 9 or (2) Seiberg-Witten M-theory with the string theory landscape? Is nature finite or infinite? Are there decisive empirical tests for finite nature versus infinite nature?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory_landscape
… “A New Kind of Science” shows that with appropriate kinds of rules, simple programs can give rise to behavior that reproduces a remarkable range of known features of our universe — leading to the bold assertion that there could be a single short program that represents a truly fundamental model of the universe, and which if run long enough would reproduce the behavior of our universe in every detail. —Stephen Wolfram, “Quick Takes on Some Ideas and Discoveries in NKS”
http://www.wolframscience.com/refer...uick_takes.html
Quantum field theory is plagued with infinities starting with the infinite electrostatic self-energy of the electron. The infinities come from the singularities of the Feynman diagrams. … Sometimes the infinities can be “renormalized” away; that is the case for electrodynamics and for the weak and strong interactions in the Standard Model of elementary-particle physics. But for gravity, renormalization theory fails because of the nature of the inherent nonlinearities in general theory. So we come to a key puzzle: The existence of gravity clashes with our description of the rest of physics by quantum fields. … We have one real candidate for changing the rules; this is string theory. — Edward Witten, “Reflections on the Fate of Spacetime”
http://www.sns.ias.edu/~witten/papers/Reflections.pdf
Mathematically, M-theory is a great success. M-theory predicts Einsteinian gravity, nonabelian gauge symmetry, and supersymmetry.
http://www.sns.ias.edu/~witten/papers/mmm.pdf “Magic, Mystery, and Matrix”
Neutralinos are predicted by M-theory and might be the explanation for cold dark matter. However, there are serious problems for the cold dark matter theory. It seems that are 2 possibilities: either (1) Milgrom’s MOND is apparently valid for some unknown reason involving cold dark matter or (2) Milgrom’s MOND is really valid. According to Professor Stacy McGaugh, astronomical findings on mass discrepancies indicate that there are two alternatives:
(1) most of the mass in the universe is invisible (in the form of dark matter), or
(2) Newtonian dynamical laws must be modified (according to Milgrom’s MOND).
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond The MOND pages
If neutralinos explain cold dark matter, then they must be weakly interactive in terms of the electromagnetic and strong interactions and also WEIRDLY INTERACTIVE in terms of gravitation; for example, the cuspy halo problem shows this necessity for weird interaction in terms of gravitation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuspy_halo_problem
Does observational astronomy indicate that there 2 and only 2 possibilities for MOND: either (1) MOND is apparently but not really valid, i.e., requiring some cold dark matter explanation or (2) MOND is really valid with some real problem in Newton’s laws of motion? Consider 3 conjectures:
Stringy MOND Conjecture: Milgrom’s MOND is overwhelming empirical evidence in favor of M-theory. M-theory with the infinite nature hypothesis implies: (A) the empirical validity of neutralino physics with a bizarre Fermi pairing of neutralinos, (B) the empirical validity of the string theory landscape, and (C) Milgrom’s MOND as apparent but not real. M-theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies: (D) the empirical validity of modified M-theory with Seiberg-Witten M-theory as an approximation to part of Wolfram’s automaton, (E) the empirical validity of the space roar profile prediction, and (F) Milgrom’s MOND as a real correction to Newton’s laws of motion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modifi...tonian_dynamics MOND
Supersymmetry Disappointment Conjecture: If a particle accelerator proves the existence of supersymmetry then that would not be convincing proof of the validity of the M-theoretical 11-dimensional domain because there would be a lower dimensional theory of supersymmetry that makes the same predictions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersymmetry
M-theoretical Dichotomy Conjecture: M-theory in some form is empirically valid. There are 2 and only 2 basic possibilities:
(1) M-theory with the string theory landscape might explain dark matter in terms of neutralinos. If there is an unknown fifth force that creates a bizarre Fermi pairing of neutralinos (perhaps across alternate universes or according to some dark fluid theory), then neutralino physics might explain cold dark matter and also explain Milgrom’s MOND. Dark energy might be the manifestation of D-brane noise created by D-brane forces that maintain the structure of the multiverse. In this case, the Rañada-Milgrom apparent-or-real effect would be the results of two problems: neutralinos would be extremely difficult to detect and some unknown fifth force would obscure most of the inertial mass of the neutralinos. The bizarre Fermi pairing of the neutralinos would obscure their inertial mass-energy but not their gravitational mass-energy.
(2) Modified M-theory with Wolfram’s automaton might explain both dark matter and dark energy as weird forces from alternate universes. Dark matter would be virtual mass-energy that has positive gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy. Dark energy would be virtual mass-energy that has negative gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy. Virtual mass-energy would be mass-energy spread across alternate universes. Real mass-energy would be mass-energy that is localized to some particular observable universe. Energy and spacetime would be merely approximations generated by Wolfram’s automaton. The black hole model would be an approximation to some finite, digitized black hole model. In this case, the Rañada-Milgrom apparent-or-real effect would be the result of the total failure of Einstein’s equivalence principle for virtual mass-energy. The equivalence principle would be 100% correct for real mass-energy and 100% wrong for virtual mass-energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory
Posted by: David Brown
According to Wolfram Alpha,
((neutron mass)/(proton mass)) - (1/(72 * pi**2)) + 1/(352 * pi**4) - 1/(1230 * pi**6) = 1, approximately.
Does the preceding numerical fact have any physical significance? Perhaps not. Is the string theory landscape an empirically valid concept? Are most of the free parameters of the Standard Model likely to be merely anthropic circumstances due to the implications of the physical existence of conscious observers? Is our spacetime a somewhat arbitrary circumstance of the various possibilities for the string landscape?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory_landscape
… “spacetime” seems destined to turn out to be only an approximate, derived notion, much as classical concepts such as the position and velocity of a particle are understood as approximate concepts in the light of quantum mechanics. — Edward Witten, “Reflections on the Fate of Spacetime”, p. 28
http://www.sns.ias.edu/~witten/papers/Reflections.pdf
Any straightforward attempt to “quantize” general relativity leads to a nonrenormalizable theory. In my opinion, this means that the theory is inconsistent and needs to be modified at short distances or high energies. The way that string theory does this is to give up one of the basic assumptions of quantum field theory, the assumption that elementary particles are mathematical points, and instead to develop a quantum field theory of one-dimensional extended objects called strings. There are very few consistent theories of this type, but superstring theory shows great promise as a unified quantum theory of all fundamental forces including gravity. … Ordinary quantum field theory does not allow gravity to exist; string theory requires it! — John Schwarz, “Introduction to Superstring Theory”
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0008017 “Introduction to Superstring Theory”, 2000
Unless one can find a reason to reject all but a few of the string theory vacua, we will have to accept that much of what we had hoped to calculate are environmental parameters, like the distance of the earth from the sun, whose values we will never be able to deduce from first principles. … The larger the number of possible values of physical parameters provided by the string landscape, the more string theory legitimates anthropic reasoning as a new basis for physical theories: Any scientists who study nature must live in a part of the landscape where physical parameters take values suitable for the appearance of life and its evolution into scientists. —Steven Weinberg, “Living in the Multiverse”, 2005, p. 3
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0511037v1 “Living in the Multiverse”
Is one of the basic issues in M-theory a choice between the string landscape and Wolfram’s automaton? Is cosmological evolution controlled by D-brane interactions? Is cosmological evolution computed by Wolfram’s automaton? Will Lestone’s heuristic string theory lead to important insights for calculating the free parameters of the Standard Model of particle physics?
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics.gen-ph/0703151v6 “Physics based calculation of the fine structure constant” by J. P. Lestone
Our present Standard Model of elementary particles can be regarded as simply the consequence of certain gauge symmetries and the associated quantum mechanical consistency conditions. — Stephen Weinberg, “Living in the Multiverse”, p. 2
Are there string landscape symmetries and supersymmetry consistency conditions that allow the calculation of the free parameters of the Standard Model of particle physics? Is it possible to falsify Seiberg-Witten M-theory and the string landscape? My guess is that M-theory with the string landscape makes an essential, new prediction: the Rañada-Milgrom effect is approximately valid due to cold dark matter particles that exist because of supersymmetry. If I am wrong about the Rañada-Milgrom effect, then replace the effect with Milgrom’s MOND in the preceding guess.
Many string theorists seem to agree with the string theorist Professor David Tong of the U. of Cambridge that “There is no experimental evidence that string theory is the correct description of our world …. “.
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/string.html David Tong: String Theory (lecture notes on string theory at a beginning graduate level)
I claim 2 things: (1) Milgrom’s MOND is empirically correct, and (2) MOND is overwhelming empirical evidence that superstring theory is correct — no other theory than M-theory gives a realistic hope of explaining MOND. Superstring theory does indeed explain MOND because MOND is correct and nothing else can explain MOND. Am I wrong about MOND and M-theory? Perhaps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modifi...tonian_dynamics MOND
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25haxRuZQUk YouTube Lecture 1: String Theory and M-Theory by Leonard Susskind
****************
Consider Wolfram’s Cosmological Principle:
The maximum physical wavelength is the Planck length times the Fredkin-Wolfram constant.
Is there some form of modified M-theory that yields a plausible alternative to the string landscape? Should cosmologists consider the possibility of the empirical validity of Wolfram’s Cosmological Principle with a Fredkin-Wolfram constant that is small enough to explain the space roar?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_roar
****************
How might NKS Chapter 9 be important in quantum field theory? According to Kapustin and Witten, “…. the geometric Langlands program for complex Riemann surfaces … can be understood as a chapter in quantum field theory.”
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0604151 “Electric-Magnetic Duality and the Geometric Langlands Program”
Consider the following:
Multiverse Conjecture with Fredkin-Wolfram Modularity. There exists a Fredkin-Wolfram equivalence relation on the string landscape, such that for each two models Model1 and Model2 within the string landscape, Model1 is Fredkin-Wolfram equivalent to Model2. The Fredkin-Wolfram equivalence relation discards all the precise information about supersymmetric partners, such as the precise rest mass of the selectron, etc. There is a multiverse product of all the string landscape models taken modulo the Fredkin-Wolfram equivalence relation. This multiverse product predicts precise values for all the free parameters of the Standard Model of particle physics. Furthermore, the multiverse product predicts a unique model for Wolfram’s automaton when Wolfram’s Cosmological Principle is assumed. Wolfram’s automaton contains several profound symmetries from the viewpoint of the geometric Langlands program.
Posted by: David Brown
In the particle theorists’ Standard Model, for the 3 gauge coupling constants, there are the approximate values:
U(1) gauge coupling: .357
SU(2) gauge coupling: .652
SU(3) gauge coupling: 1.221
… these 3 dimensionless constants are determined by applying theory to experimental measurements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0308144v2 “Trying to Understand Standard Model parameters” by C. D. Froggart & H. B. Nielsen, 2003
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0108195v6 “The Standard Model in 2001” by J. L. Rosner
According to Wolfram Alpha,
1 + pi/16 + pi**2/400 = 1.22102355...
Is the preceding formula an approximation to a power series in pi that yields the SU(3) gauge coupling constant?
According to NKS Chapter 9, Wolfram’s mobile automaton operates below the Planck scale with a Wolframian updating parameter that gradually builds approximations to time, space, and energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science
If Wolfram is correct, then all the free parameters of the Standard Model should have precise representations in terms of Newton’s gravitational constant, Planck’s constant, the speed of light, and the Fredkin-Wolfram constant. If advocates of NKS Chapter 9 generate thousands of formulas that attempt to explain the free parameters of the Standard Model, then many of the formulas might be meaningless or misleading but valuable truths might emerge.
Does the arithmetic mean of the 3 gauge coupling constants have some interesting physical interpretation in terms of superstring theory?
((1.221 + .652 + .357)/3)**(1/64) = .99537618...
Most physicists would dismiss the preceding estimate as a meaningless numerical fact. However, according to the Fuzzy Energy Tensor Conjecture, there might be a 64 by 64 M-theoretical formula that represents (1.221 + .652 + .357)/3 as a trace derived from 64 fuzzy energy tensors on the 11-dimensional mystery domain. (See the posting “NKS-modified M-theory: vibrating superstrings or fuzzy energy tensors?” at nks forum applied nks.) This particular arithmetic mean might somehow measure how the unified forces govern the multiverse. If this physical hypothesis is correct, then the (1/64)th root of the arithmetic mean of the 3 gauge coupling constants might be expandable in terms of a power series in some physically significant number.
If there are trace formulas and determinant formulas for all the physical constants in terms of the Fuzzy Energy Tensor Conjecture, then the formula
(pi * (5/8) * (3/8))**(1/64) = .99522856...
might derive from a determinant formula in which pi, 5/8, and 3/8 represent a unification of gravitation with (SU(8) matter) X (SU(8) antimatter) and with an embedding of SU(3) X SU(5) into SU(8).
According to Wolfram Alpha, we have the following 4 numerical facts:
((2 pi) **6)** (1/64) = 1.2340646674626...
(((mass up quark) ** 3) * ((mass down quark) **3) / ((mass electron)**6))**(1/64) = 1.19
(((mass strange quark) ** 3) * ((mass charm quark) **3) / ((mass muon)**6))**(1/64) = 1.12
(((mass top quark) ** 3) * ((mass bottom quark) **3) / ((mass tau)**6))**(1/64) = 1.2908
Do the 4 preceding formulas have explanations in terms of the hypothesis of the fuzzy energy tensor formulation of M-theory and the hypothesis of the 3 energy-density levels for strings? (See the posting “Does D-brane M-theory with the Higgs boson resolve the vacuum catastrophe?” at nks forum applied nks.)
In 2006, Carl A. Brannen, generalizing the work of Koide, predicted the neutrino values:
m1 = .0003834625 eV
m2 = .008913487 eV
m3 = .05071180 eV .
http://brannenworks.com/MASSES.pdf “Koide Mass Formula for Neutrinos”, 2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino
According to Wolfram Alpha,
(5 pi)**(1/8) = 1.41096 ...
(((electron mass) * c**2)/(.0003834625 eV))**(1/64) = 1.38858795
(((muon mass) * c**2)/(.008913487 eV))**(1/64) = 1.43682542
(((tau mass) * c**2)/(.05071180 eV))**(1/64) = 1.46136 .
If Brannen’s predictions are correct, then can M-theory explain the preceding 3 numerical estimates? Does M-theory need to explain Milgrom’s MOND, the space roar, Lestone’s estimates, and the Koide formula?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koide_formula
Posted by: David Brown
According to the Wikipedia entry for “Standard Model”, “The global Poincaré symmetry is postulated for all relativistic quantum field theories. It consists of the familiar translational symmetry, rotational symmetry and the inertial reference frame invariance central to the theory of special relativity. The local SU(3) X SU(2) X U(1) gauge symmetry is an internal symmetry that essentially defines the standard model. Roughly, the three factors of the gauge symmetry give rise to the three fundamental interactions. The fields fall into different representations of the various symmetry groups of the Standard Model … Upon writing the most general Lagrangian, one finds that the dynamics depend on 19 parameters, whose numerical values are established by experiment.”
The CKM 12-mixing angle is roughly 13.1º.
The CKM 23-mixing angle is roughly 2.4º.
The CKM 13-mixing angle is roughly 0.2º.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabibb...Maskawa_matrix CKM matrix
Note that 360º = 2 pi radians so that for the 3 Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa mixing angles, there are the following 3 approximations according to Wolfram Alpha:
((13.1) * (pi /180)) - (2/27) pi * (1 - 1/(5 pi**2)) = .000643267...
((2.4) * (pi /180)) - (2**(-3/2)) * (1/27) pi = .000750097...
((.2) * (pi /180)) - (1/32) * (1/27) pi = -.000145444...
Are the 3 preceding approximations meaningless in terms of physics? Perhaps so, but if “A New Kind of Science” (NKS) Chapter 9 is correct, then all the free parameters of the Standard Model should have precise explanations in terms of modified M-theory with Wolfram’s automaton.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory
I don’t think that it has ever happened that a theory that has the kind of mathematical appeal that string theory has has turned out to be wrong. … And in any case I don’t see any alternative to string theory. I don’t see any other way of bringing gravity into the same general theoretical framework as all the other forces of nature. — Steven Weinberg
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/view-weinberg.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Weinberg
Is there either an APPARENT failure or a REAL failure of Newton’s laws of motion displayed in EMPIRICAL DATA on galactic rotation curves?
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond The MOND pages
http://www.astro.uni-bonn.de/~pavel..._cosmology.html Pavel Kroupa: Dark Matter, Cosmology and Progress
Lambda CDM is ruled out … — Pavel Kroupa
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbIRbrywMGo Dark Matter — a debate, YouTube, 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
If neutralinos explain cold dark matter, then they must be weakly interactive in terms of the electromagnetic and strong interactions and also WEIRDLY INTERACTIVE in terms of gravitation; for example, the cuspy halo problem shows this necessity for weird interaction in terms of gravitation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuspy_halo_problem
Should M-theorists consider the following 4-part agenda?
(1) Explain and generalize Milgrom’s Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) in terms of M-theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modifi...tonian_dynamics MOND
(2) Explain and generalize Lestone’s heuristic string theory in terms of M-theory.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics.gen-ph/0703151v6 “Physics based calculation of the fine structure constant” by J. P. Lestone
(3) Explain and generalize the Koide formula in terms of M-theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koide_formula
(4) Explain the space roar in terms of modified M-theory with Wolfram’s automaton.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_roar
Posted by: David Brown
Is M-theory essential for understanding the cosmological constant and dark matter?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
To think, as dark-matter advocates say they do, that the universal MOND regularities exhibited by galaxies will one day be shown to somehow follow from complex formation processes, is, to my mind, a delusion. — Mordehai Milgrom, “DM or MD?”, p. 1
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.5122v1 “MD or DM? Modified dynamics at low accelerations versus dark matter” by M. Milgrom, 2010, Proceedings of Science
The Pioneer anomaly poses a most intriguing riddle for physics and very complex and difficult problems for metrology. — Antonio F. Rañada
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0410084 “The Pioneer anomaly as acceleration of the clocks”
It is widely accepted that quarks and leptons are fundamental entities of the matter. If it is true, the masses and mixings of the quarks and leptons will obey a simple law of nature, and we will be able to find a beautiful relation among these values. — Yoshio Koide
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0506247 “Challenge of the Mystery of the Charged Mass Formula”, 2005
When trying to explain or calculate the value of the fine structure constant, it is difficult to separate reasonable assumptions from assumptions that are chosen to give a result close to the known desired value. — John P. Lestone
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics.gen-ph/0703151v6 “Physics based calculation of the fine structure constant” by J. P. Lestone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant
… eventually I had to create a whole new kind of science. … Will we find the whole of physics? — Stephen Wolfram
http://www.ted.com/talks/stephen_wo...everything.html Stephen Wolfram: Computing a theory of everything; TED talk posted Apr. 2010
Is Wolfram on the right track? If M-theory is empirically valid, then should M-theorists explain the empirical value of the cosmological constant? The universe consists of roughly 73% dark energy (i.e., energy that consists of gravitational repulsion) and roughly 27% matter that is gravitationally attractive. If the universe consisted of 100% dark energy, then would the CKM CP-violating phase be identically equal to one for the simple reason that measurable antimatter would not exist? In terms of the string landscape, should the CKM CP-violating phase be a strictly increasing function of the % of dark energy in the universe? According to the string landscape together with the Fuzzy Energy Tensor Hypothesis, (% dark energy in the universe)**(1/64) might be highly correlated with the CKM CP-violating phase.
According to Wolfram Alpha,
.728**(1/64) = .99503069...
According to Wikipedia, 72.8 % is approximately the % of dark energy in the universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model
According to Wikipedia, .995 is approximately the CKM CP-violating phase.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
To my way of thinking, if M-theory with the landscape theory is the valid model of the multiverse or if modified M-theory with Wolfram’s automaton is the valid model of the multiverse, then
(% of dark energy in each observable universe)**(1/64) should somehow approximately represent the degree of matter/antimatter asymmetry in each observable universe.
Consider Wolfram’s Cosmological Principle:
The maximum physical wavelength is the Planck length times the Fredkin-Wolfram constant.
If the Fredkin-Wolfram constant is too big to explain the space roar, then my guess is that the multiverse is either infinite or might as well be infinite from the viewpoint of the experimental physicist. (See the posting “Is the space roar profile overwhelming empirical evidence for NKS Chapter 9?” at nks forum applied nks.) I make the guess that Fredkin-Wolfram information makes M-theoretical digital data within the 11-dimensional mystery domain and then the derived M-theoretical digital data makes approximations to quantum field theory and general relativity theory. What if my guess is wrong? If my guess is wrong, then I vote in favor of Seiberg-Witten M-theory with the string landscape. I suggest that there exist 5 rules for modified M-theory and 4 smooth axioms for orthodox M-theory:
Rule 1 (Smooth Axiom 1) for the Standard Model + CPT invariance + gauge symmetry + supersymmetry.
Rule 2 (Smooth Axiom 2) for general relativity theory + the Rañada-Milgrom effect.
Rule 3 (Smooth Axiom 3) for generalized Koide predictions + string energy-density levels.
Rule 4 (Smooth Axiom 4) for generalized Lestone predictions + D-brane force that maintains quarks, leptons, and massive bosons.
Rule 5 for the space roar profile prediction + Wolfram’s fundamental network framework for Rules 1 through 4.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_roar
Rule 5 describes the basic network framework for Wolfram’s automaton. Rules 1 through 4 describe how the Fredkin delivery machine works. Smooth Axioms 1 through 4 describe how the Nambu transfer machine uses the Fredkin-Wolfram information to make M-theoretical predictions that are empirically testable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Fredkin
My personal view is that string theory is probably on the right track toward a much better understanding of nature. — Edward Witten
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEutI_JKr7A Edward Witten — String theory 5/5 — YouTube
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Witten
Can M-theorists explain and generalize the work of Milgrom, Koide, and Lestone?
Posted by: David Brown
For the 3 gauge coupling constants, there are the approximate values:
U(1) gauge coupling: .357
SU(2) gauge coupling: .652
SU(3) gauge coupling: 1.221 in the Standard Model of particle physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
According to Wolfram Alpha,
(8/5) * log(1.221/.652) = 1.00381...
(5/3) * log(.652/.357) = 1.00385...
In the Lambda Cold Dark Matter Model, the % of dark energy in the universe is approximately 72.8 %.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model
According to Wolfram Alpha
((1.221 * .652 * .357)**(1/3))/(pi * (5/8) * (3/8))**(1/3) = .728098...
If the Fuzzy Energy Tensor Hypothesis is true, then does the preceding numerical fact have a 64 X 64 determinant representation THAT REPRESENTS THE LAW OF THE CONSERVATION OF ENERGY?
Consider 3 hypotheses:
(1) Milgrom is a serious rival to Kepler.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordehai_Milgrom
(2) Witten is a serious rival to Dirac.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Witten
(3) Wolfram is a serious rival to Newton and Einstein.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Wolfram
Is Milgrom’s MOND empirically wrong? I conjecture that Milgrom, McGaugh. and Kroupa are plausible candidates for the Nobel Prize in cosmology.
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond The MOND pages (McGaugh)
http://www.astro.uni-bonn.de/~pavel..._cosmology.html Pavel Kroupa: Dark Matter, Cosmology and Progress
Is the Lambda Cold Dark Matter Model 100% correct? I conjecture that the cuspy halo problem proves that something is seriously wrong with the Lambda CDM Model.
http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuspy_halo_problem
I am saying Lambda CDM doesn’t work … — Pavel Kroupa
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZF9bPVOsb4 Dark Matter — The Debate, 2010, YouTube
Is Witten wrong about M-theory? I conjecture that the Rañada-Milgrom effect proves that some form of M-theory is the ONLY PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION for MOND.
Is Wolfram wrong about NKS Chapter 9? I conjecture that the space roar proves that modified M-theory with Wolfram’s automaton is valid physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_roar
I conjecture that Lestone and Koide are plausible candidates for the Nobel Prize and their ideas are the way that M-theory can explain quarks, leptons, and bosons according to string sphere models (3-spheres, 2-spheres, and 1-spheres for quarks, leptons, and massive bosons, respectively) and, for generalizations of the Koide formula, string energy-density levels (3 levels for the 3 generations).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koide_formula
According to Wolfram Alpha,
((neutron mass) – (proton mass) – (electron mass))/(electron mass) – (((1024)**(1/64))/.728) =
2.386 * 10**-4
— if the multiverse model really does consist of modified M-theory with Wolfram’s automation, then the preceding numerical estimate should have a meaning in terms of the Fredkin delivery machine and the Nambu transfer machine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron
In order to successfully calculate such numbers as (down quark mass)/(up quark mass), can M-theorists develop a theory of mystified Feynman diagrams and generalized Lestone estimates? Is M-theory the only plausible hope for a deeper understanding of gravitation? Does the basis of physics consist of a choice of 2 things: M-theory with the infinite nature hypothesis or modified M-theory with the finite nature hypothesis? Is supersymmetry guaranteed to exist either as physical particles that exist in nature or as symmetry principles within Wolfram’s automaton?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersymmetry
There is a real mystery as to why the Higgs is not much, much heavier than the other particles … And supersymmetry provides a possible answer … — Steven Weinberg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl4W3DYTIKw Higgs, dark matter and supersymmetry: What the Large Hadron Collider will tell us (Steven Weinberg), 2009, YouTube
**************
How come there is anything at all? — John Wheeler
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyZLFXS7TFc Interview with John Wheeler 1/3, YouTube
*********************
… the great discovery always involves a great philosophical surprise. … These discoveries cannot be made twice. ... How long is it going to take? Do we have all the clues? — Richard Feynman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik09U05jBxs Richard Feynman 1964 (3 0f 3) Interview — Strangeness Minus Three, YouTube
*****************
The quark idea violated some well-known principles. … we had three clearly defined ideas that made the quarks wrong. But those three ideas were themselves wrong. … And that idea occurs over and over again in science. — Murray Gell-Mann
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVKyFoKoWS0 Murray Gell-Mann — US Zeitgeist 2010
Posted by: David Brown
I personally believe that string theory knows a lot of things that humans don’t. — Edward Witten
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEutI_JKr7A Edward Witten — String theory 5/5 — YouTube
**********
Helmholtz … saturation, incubation, and illumination … Poincaré … verification … Check that the idea works. … Most challenges to scientific orthodoxy are wrong, and very many of them are crank. … You should always ask, Why not? … Usually there is a damn good reason why not. — Murray Gell-Mann
http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...750045682633998 On Getting Creative Ideas — Murray Gell-Mann — Google Videos, 2007
********
They laughed at our model. They said it was lousy. And it was. ... Linus was wrong and we were still in the game. … So Crick and I started building models. — James D. Watson
http://www.ted.com/talks/james_wats...overed_dna.html James Watson on how he discovered DNA, TED talks video
*********
Everything is possibly wrong. — Richard Feynman
http://www.youtube.com//watch?v=Y8q0vDP30YQ Richard Feynman 1964 (1 of 3) Interview — Strangeness Minus Three, YouTube
*********
Is M-theory the only plausible way to understand the unification of gravitation with quantum field theory? What might explain the space roar? If modified M-theory with Wolfram’s automaton does not explain the space roar, then what does explain the space roar?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_roar
What might explain dark matter? Why are there 3 generations of particles in the Standard Model? What might explain dark energy? Why do quarks, leptons, and bosons exist?
Consider 3 hypotheses:
(1) Milgrom is the Kepler of modern cosmology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordehai_Milgrom
(2) Generalization of the Koide formula to M-theory might explain dark matter, Milgrom’s MOND, and the 3 generations of particles in the Standard Model.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koide_formula
(3) Generalization of Lestone’s heuristic string theory to M-theory might explain dark energy and the stringy reason for the existence of quarks, leptons, and bosons.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics.gen-ph/0703151v6 “Physics based calculation of the fine structure constant” by J. P. Lestone
Could there be a Lestone mechanism embedded in M-theory that explains dark energy in terms of a D-brane force that maintains the structure of quarks, leptons, and massive bosons? Consider 4 possible axioms:
Axiom 1: An electron singularity consists of a string with 3 loops confined to the surface of a 2-sphere with diameter equal to the Planck length.
Axiom 2: Gravitation keeps the electron singularity from expanding, and D-brane force keeps the diameter of the electron singularity from shrinking below the Planck length. This D-brane force shows up as D-brane noise in the form of the nonzero cosmological constant. The D-brane force maintains the structures of leptons, quarks, and massive bosons and also maintains the physical separation between the matter universe and the antimatter universe.
Axiom 3: The uncertainty in the position of the string loop on the electron singularity surface can be calculated by calculating the total of the energy uncertainty of the 2-sphere multiplied by the energy uncertainty in the string loop relative to the uncertainty in the positional uncertainty of the normal unit vector for each possible position of the normal unit vector on the surface.
The triple loop of string is confined to the surface of an electron singularity, because the electron singularity is the triple loop of string. Gravitation might attract the loop of string to the center of mass of the electron singularity while D-brane force prevents any 2-dimensional sphere of energy from having a diameter less than the Planck length.
In M-theory with the Lestone mechanism there are basically only three possibilities for a massive elementary particle: a 3-sphere particle singularity for the quarks and fermionic hadrons, a 2-sphere particle singularity for the leptons, and a 1-sphere particle singularity for the massive bosons. The Lestone mechanism for the matter universe and the Lestone mechanism for the antimatter universe explain why the 11-dimensional mystery domain is 11 dimensional.
Axiom 4: The surface of the electron singularity does have not a temperature in the sense of quantum field theory but instead has the string-theoretical analogue of temperature, which is merely a calculation device that can be used in quantum electrodynamics. The same idea holds for quark singularities and massive boson singularities.
Are Axioms 1 through 4 a valid basis for developing a Lestone mechanism within M-theory in order to explain dark energy? Perhaps not, but how can M-theory explain dark energy? How can M-theory explain dark matter? According to Milgrom, McGaugh, and Kroupa, the Lambda Cold Dark Matter Model is seriously wrong and is the inferior theory when compared to MOND.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.5122v1 “MD or DM? Modified dynamics at low accelerations versus dark matter” by M. Milgrom, 2010, Proceedings of Science
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond The MOND pages (McGaugh)
http://www.astro.uni-bonn.de/~pavel..._cosmology.html Pavel Kroupa: Dark Matter, Cosmology and Progress
If fermionic cold dark matter particles are the true explanation for the dark matter problem, then could a bizarre Fermi pairing of such particles across alternate universes explain Milgrom’s MOND? (See the posting “Can D-brane M-theory with the Higgs boson resolve the vacuum catastrophe” at nks forum applied nks.) Consider 4 ideas:
(1) Seiberg-Witten M-theory is the ambiguous limit of modified M-theory with Wolfram’s automaton as the Fredkin-Wolfram constant approaches infinity.
(2) The basis of physics is either M-theory with the infinite nature hypothesis or modified M-theory with the finite nature hypothesis.
(3) If nature really does run in terms of Wolfram’s automaton with the Fredkin delivery machine and the Nambu transfer machine, then there must exist an M-theoretical string landscape explanation that matches the predictions from Wolfram’s automaton, even though such an explanation might seem absurdly contrived.
(4) If Fredkin’s Finite Nature Hypothesis is false, then the explanation of Milgrom’s MOND is that fermionic cold dark matter particles exhibit a bizarre Fermi pairing that is partly in a matter universe and partly in an antimatter universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modifi...tonian_dynamics MOND
Assume for the sake of argument that Fredkin’s Finite Nature Hypothesis is false.
Consider Axioms 5 through 7 for the Koide mechanism within M-theory:
Axiom 5: Fermionic cold dark matter particles predicted by some form of M-theory might exhibit a bizarre Fermi pairing that occurs partly in a matter universe and partly in an antimatter universe. This bizarre Fermi pairing might explain MOND in the form of the Rañada-Milgrom effect as an apparent but not real violation of the equivalence principle and Newton’s laws of motion.
Axiom 6: The Koide formula is a corollary of some hypothesis of string energy-density levels added to M-theory. This new physical hypothesis explains the 3 generations of particles in the Standard Model.
Axiom 7. The Koide mechanism within M-theory explains Axioms 5 and 6. The Koide mechanism and the Lestone mechanism can explain most of the free parameters of the Standard Model.
Are Axioms 1 through 7 false? Can M-theorists find plausible axioms that explains all the free parameters of the Standard Model?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
Posted by: David Brown
The excellent agreement seems to be beyond a matter of accidental coincidence … — Yoshio Koide
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0506247 “Challenge to the Mystery of the Charged Lepton Mass Formula”, 2005
***********
The new physics entailed by MOND shows up in full force only in galactic systems, whose dynamics is governed by gravity. — Mordehai Milgrom
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.5122v1 “MD or DM? Modified dynamics at low accelerations versus dark matter” by M. Milgrom, 2010, Proceedings of Science
*************
… the questions on the smallest and largest scale are actually very connected. — Patricia Burchat
http://www.ted.com/talks/patricia_b...ark_energy.html Patricia Burchat sheds light on dark matter, Ted Talks, 2008
************
As a physicist, I would like to be able to calculate everything including the mass of the electron and the lifetime of the muon … from pencil and paper. — Edward Witten
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEutI_JKr7A Edward Witten — String theory 5/5 — YouTube
****************
Are the ideas of Koide, Lestone, and Milgrom essential for understanding dark matter, dark energy, and string theory? I claim that the answer is yes.
Claim: IF ONE STRING THEORIST REALIZES THAT MOND IS CORRECT AND THAT MILGROM IS THE KEPLER OF MODERN COSMOLOGY, THEN THAT THEORIST WILL QUICKLY PERSUADE ALL THE OTHER STRING THEORISTS — and M-theorists will then quickly make breakthroughs such as calculating the fine structure constant.
Is the preceding claim correct? Perhaps not. What does dark energy mean in terms of string theory? Can calculations suggest valuable clues? In the Lambda Cold Dark Matter Model, the % of dark energy in the universe is approximately 72.8 %.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model
Note that .728**(1/64) = .99505206... — does this have a physical meaning?
Do M-theorists need to add new physical hypotheses to M-theory? If M-theory can incorporate the Lestone mechanism, the Koide mechanism, and Fermi pairing in support of MOND, then can M-theorists calculate most of the free parameters of the Standard Model? According to McGaugh and Kroupa, the Lambda Cold Dark Matter Model is not entirely valid and Milgrom’s Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) is superior to Lambda CDM on many empirical predictions. (Note that McGaugh and Kroupa started out as Lambda CDM supporters and only changed their minds on the basis of astronomical evidence.)
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond The MOND pages (McGaugh)
http://www.astro.uni-bonn.de/~pavel..._cosmology.html Pavel Kroupa: Dark Matter, Cosmology and Progress
Consider the following 7 hypotheses:
(1) There is overwhelming empirical evidence in favor of MOND.
(2) The valid explanation of MOND requires an enormous breakthrough in understanding the foundations of physics.
(3) M-theory with the infinite nature hypothesis might explain MOND. In this case, the equivalence principle is 100% true for real mass-energy and 100% true for virtual mass-energy that IS ENTIRELY CONTAINED in the matter universe; however, the equivalence principle is FALSE for virtual mass-energy that is partly in the matter universe and partly in the antimatter universe. Fermionic cold dark matter particles would explain dark matter but with the added hypothesis of a bizarre Fermi pairing that is partly in the matter universe and partly in the antimatter universe.
(4) Modified M-theory with the finite nature hypothesis might explain MOND. If modified M-theory with Wolfram’s automaton is empirically valid, then the multiverse should precisely repeat itself approximately every 81.6 billion years. In this case, the equivalence principle is 100% true for real mass-energy and 100% false for virtual mass-energy. The space roar profile prediction is a decisive empirical test for the Fredkin Finite Nature Hypothesis. (If the Fredkin-Wolfram constant is too large to explain the space roar, then the Fredkin-Wolfram constant might as well be infinite.)
(5) M-theory and the assumption that MOND is empirically correct might imply the validity of the Rañada-Milgrom real-or-apparent effect, which is that the -1/2 in the standard form of Einstein’s field equations needs to be replaced by -1/2 + sqrt((60±10)/4) * 10**-5. From the viewpoint of M-theory this is the simplest and most likely way to modify the equations. There should be real modification if the finite nature hypothesis is true, and there should be apparent modification if the infinite nature hypothesis is correct. The apparent modification would be due to virtual mass-energy that is partly in the matter universe and partly in the antimatter universe.
(6) Any valid explanation of MOND must be some form of M-theory, because M-theory is the only valid way to model the interactions between the matter universe and the antimatter universe.
(7) Generalizations of the ideas of Lestone and Koide might lead to calculation of most of the free parameters in the Standard Model.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koide_formula
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
The Koide formula is a mystery that has not yet found a widely accepted explanation. A few physicists such as Brannen have attempted to generalize Koide’s formula.
http://brannenworks.com/MASSES.pdf “Koide Mass Formula for Neutrinos” by Brannen, 2006
Should M-theorists attempt to add stringy physical hypotheses that yield Koide-type estimates?
According to Wolfram Alpha:
((up quark mass) * (down quark mass))**.5 = 3.317 MeV/c**2
((strange quark mass) * (charm quark mass))**.5 = .3446 GeV/c**2
((bottom quark mass) * (top quark mass))**.5 = 27.05 GeV/c**2
If x = 3.317 * 10**-3 and y = .3446 and z = 27.05 then what is (8/(pi**2) - 4/(5 pi**4)) * (x**.5 + y**.5 + z**.5)**2/(x + y + z) ? Answer: 1.0007
Is the preceding numerical estimate meaningless in terms of physics? Perhaps, but if modified M-theory with Wolfram’s automaton is empirically valid then Wolfram’s automaton predicts precise values for all the free parameters of the Standard Model. If the Fuzzy Energy Tensor Hypothesis is valid, then values such as ((up quark mass) * (down quark mass))**(1/64) should have representations in terms of a fuzzy energy tensor determinant. Such representations should have Taylor series expansions in terms of pi.
According to Wolfram Alpha:
.728**(1/64) = .99505206...
(((8/5) * (up quark mass))/(down quark mass))**(1/64) = .995
((3 pi) * (strange quark mass)/(charm quark mass))**(1/64) = .995
(((48/5) pi) * (bottom quark mass)/(top quark mass))**(1/64) = .99503
Can the 3 preceding numerical estimates be derived from the Fuzzy Energy Tensor Hypothesis and the Law of Conservation of Energy for the multiverse?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark
Is the quark the trinity of particle physics that can lead to many trinities in mathematics? What are the greatest truths, questions, goals, and opportunities in M-theory, cosmology, and mathematics? Is M-theory the library of supreme beauty in mathematics unified with the foundations of physics? Is the library of M-theory beautifully automated by Wolfram’s automaton? Are Milgrom, Rañada, Koide, Lestone, McGaugh, and Kroupa the geniuses who can help the string theorists find the book of empirical truth? In any domain of knowledge, should those who seek knowledge ask: Who are the geniuses who point to the greatest truths, questions, goals, and opportunities? Who are the best guides to the future?
Posted by: David Brown
String theory not only allows gravity but gravity is an essential mathematical consequence of the theory. The sceptics say big deal; the string theorists say BIG DEAL! — Leonard Susskind, quoted by Matthew Chalmers
http://download.iop.org/pw/PWSep07strings.pdf “Stringscape” by M. Chalmers, 2007
The extent to which first principles uniquely determine what we see in nature is itself a question that science has to answer. — Joseph Polchinski
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0603249v2 “The Cosmological Constant and the String Landscape” by J. Polchinski, 2006
Are the ideas of Milgrom, Koide, and Lestone essential for M-theory? Are the three greatest challenges for M-theory the explanations of (1) dark energy, (2) dark matter, and (3) the fine-structure constant?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory
According to the paper “Physics based calculation of the fine structure constant” by J. P. Lestone, “the fine structure constant calculated here suggests that the forces between fundamental particles are due to the exchange of bosons between particles having both a surface area and an effective temperature, and the internal structure of electrons is string-like with an internal length scale close to 3 times the particle’s circumference.”
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics.gen-ph/0703151v6 “Physics based calculation of the fine structure constant” by J. P. Lestone
Is development of Lestone’s heuristic string one of the best hopes for string theory with testable predictions? (See the posting “Matrix string theory, NKS, Milgrom mechanism, Lestone mechanism, and Koide mechanism” at nks forum applied nks.) Is the Lestone mechanism a fundamental starting point for restriction of the string landscape?
CENTRAL DOGMA OF M-THEORY: Seiberg-Witten M-theory predicts gravity, nonabelian gauge symmetry, supersymmetry, and the string landscape. The hbar observables of M-theory are the hbar observables of quantum field theory. The hbar/alpha-prime observables of M-theory are of two types: (1) applications of the anthropic principle using the string landscape and (2) implications of possible fundamental restrictions of the string landscape. Bohrian M-theory is Seiberg-Witten M-theory with irreducible quantum agnosticism. Einsteinian M-theory is modified M-theory with quantum agnosticism reducible to hidden determinism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory_landscape
CLAIM 1: If a physicist measures the gravitational mass-energy of a virtual particle, then the particle is real.
CLAIM 2: If virtual mass-energy satisfies the equivalence principle, then M-theory with the string landscape is empirically valid and the Rañada-Milgrom apparent-or-real effect is apparent and not real.
CLAIM 3: M-theory with the string landscape cannot be empirically falsified if quantum field theory and general relativity theory are valid.
CLAIM 4: M-theory with the string landscape is the ambiguous limit of modified M-theory with Wolfram’s automaton as the Fredkin-Wolfram constant approaches infinity.
If the preceding four claims are correct, then what? In the posting “Is the space roar profile overwhelming empirical evidence for NKS Chapter 9?” at nks forum applied nks, there is a suggestion for a decisive empirical test for Wolfram’s cosmological principle. This principle says that the maximum physical wavelength is the Planck length times the Fredkin-Wolfram constant. If the space roar profile is a false prediction, then I suggest that Wolfram’s cosmological principle is either wrong or empirically irrelevant.
TWO QUESTIONS: Without new physical hypotheses added to M-theory, what are the physical implications of the string landscape? Does the anthropic principle give all the physical implications of a huge number of Calabi-Yau manifolds each supporting a huge number of superstring theories?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
TWO CONJECTURES: Milgrom’s MOND is valid and M-theory in some form is the only way to explain MOND. If NKS Chapter 9 fails to explain the space roar, then NKS Chapter 9 is an empirical failure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_roar
If M-theory is correct, then how does nature implement alpha-prime? Is there some Milgrom-Lestone-Koide unified mechanism that describes the way that alpha-prime works in nature?
Posted by: David Brown
Can extra dimensions help with dark matter? Maybe. … Can extra dimensions help with dark energy? Maybe. — Sean Carroll
http://youtube.com/watch?v=cxFfUsDgnaU Authors@Google: Sean Google, 2009
Is M-theory an empirical success if and only if M-theory can explain dark matter and dark energy? Is it wise for string theorists to ignore Lestone’s heuristic string theory and the ideas of Milgrom and Koide? Can M-theory go beyond the string landscape and the anthropic principle? Consider some hypotheses:
(1) Dark energy is D-brane noise appearing in the form of the cosmological constant.
(2) Dark matter is D-brane reinforcement of Einsteinian gravitational signal.
(3) The explanation of the precise value of the fine-structure constant is Lestone’s heuristic string theory understood within the context of M-theory with a unified Milgrom-Lestone-Koide mechanism.
(4) Space roar is confirmation that Wolfram’s cosmological principle is empirically valid.
(5) Seiberg-Witten M-theory with the string landscape is empirically valid if and only if dark matter particles explain dark matter and the Rañada-Milgrom effect is apparent and not real. In this case, something obscures MOST but not ALL of the inertial mass-energy of the cold dark matter particles.
(6) Modified M-theory with Wolfram’s automaton is empirically valid if and only if virtual mass-energy has zero inertial mass-energy with nonzero gravitational mass-energy and the Rañada-Milgrom effect is real with a real failure of the equivalence principle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-brane
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_roar
If the string landscape is empirically valid, there might not be a valid explanation of the precise value of the fine-structure constant. However, should superstring theory explain dark matter, dark energy, and the space roar? Suppose a new theory modifies Einstein’s field equations. If the new theory does not have an approximate form with -1/2 replaced by -1/2 + new-theory-adjustment-range-1 and with cosmological constant replaced by cosmological constant + new-theory-adjustment-range-2 then is the new theory guaranteed to fail? Does any new theory of gravity have to pass through the superstring filter?
Posted by: David Brown
… gauge bosons may become massive, through the so-called Higgs mechanism, and the heavier the gauge bosons, the rarer are the processes mediated by their exchange. (The Higgs mechanism is in a very direct sense simply a relativistic version of Fritz and Heinz London’s superconductivity electrodynamics.)
… empty space is not a true void, but rather a dynamical medium full of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs that flicker briefly into existence and then reannihilate before traveling very far. … These denizens of the vacuum can be polarized, no less than molecules in a solid. As a result the charge and the electric field distributions close to a nominal elementary “point particle” are in fact structured. The charge is partially screened. The vacuum is a dielectric. — Dimopoulos, Raby, & Wilczek, “Unification of Couplings”, pp. 27-28.
http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~...ysics.today.pdf “Unification of Couplings”, Physics Today, Oct. 1991
According to the Wikipedia entry for “Higgs boson”,
“The Higgs boson particle is the quantum of the theoretical Higgs field. In empty space, the Higgs field has an amplitude different from zero; i.e. a non-zero vacuum expectation value. The existence of this non-zero vacuum expectation plays a fundamental role; it gives mass to every elementary particle that couples to the Higgs field, including the Higgs boson itself. The acquisition of a non-zero vacuum expectation value spontaneously breaks electroweak gauge symmetry. This is the Higgs mechanism, which is the simplest process capable of giving mass to the gauge bosons while remaining compatible with gauge theories.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson
If nature consists of strings traveling at the speed of light in a vacuum, then how can massive particles be explained in terms of string theory? If nature does not contain a Higgs mechanism, then what might explain how mass occurs in nature? Is Lestone’s heuristic string theory an empirically valid part of M-theory in some form? Are the 6 pariah groups and the monster group relevant to M-theory and, if so, how? Can M-theory explain galactic rotation curves, the dwarf galaxy problem, and the cuspy halo problem? Can Milgrom’s non-relativistic MOND be derived from M-theory in some form? M-theory implies gravity, nonabelian gauge symmetry, and supersymmetry; are there plausible hypotheses that, together with gravity, nonabelian gauge symmetry, and supersymmetry, imply M-theory?
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics.gen-ph/0703151v6 “Physics based calculation of the fine structure constant” by J. P. Lestone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_group
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modifi...tonian_dynamics MOND
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory
Consider three alternatives:
ALTERNATIVE A: Nature works according to Seiberg-Witten M-theory with the string landscape and with irreducible quantum agnosticism. Time, space, and energy are more fundamental than mass. Lestone’s heuristic string theory is empirically wrong. Nature contains a Higgs mechanism or some other mechanism that rules out the possibility that time, space, energy, and mass are at the same level of fundamental importance in nature’s mathematical model.
ALTERNATIVE B. Nature works according to Seiberg-Witten M-theory with the string landscape and with irreducible quantum agnosticism. Mass occurs in nature according to a generalized Lestone mechanism. Time, space, and energy might be more fundamental than mass, but perhaps not.
ALTERNATIVE C. Nature works according to modified M-theory with Wolfram’s mobile automaton. There is an alpha-prime mechanism that unifies the ideas of Milgrom, Lestone, and Koide. Mass occurs in nature according to a generalized Lestone mechanism. Time, space, energy, and mass are approximations created by Wolfram’s automaton. One Planck time interval of the cosmological model is an approximation created by a huge number of updates from the Wolframian updating parameter operating on an informational network below the Planck scale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koide_formula
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science
If ALTERNATIVE A is empirically valid, then the posting “D-brane noise, SFELIOS neutralino physics, and the Koide formula” at nks forum applied nks might be relevant to understanding the foundations of physics. If nature works according to ALTERNATIVE B or ALTERNATIVE C then modified M-theory with Wolfram’s automaton might be the limit of Seiberg-Witten M-theory as the neutralino mass approaches zero. Seiberg-Witten M-theory might be the ambiguous limit of modified M-theory with Wolfram’s automaton as the Fredkin-Wolfram constant approaches infinity. Of course, it might be possible that ALTERNATIVES A, B, and C are all wrong — in this, case 100% of David Brown’s ideas are wrong and the reader should look elsewhere to understand the foundations of physics and cosmology.
http://en.wikipedia.org./wiki/D-brane
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model
Can ALTERNATIVE A resolve the vacuum catastrophe? Consider the posting “Does D-brane M-theory with the Higgs boson resolve the vacuum catastrophe?” at nks forum applied nks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_catastrophe
Consider 7 questions: Does the Higgs mechanism explain how mass occurs in nature? If the Higgs mechanism doesn't work, then what does explain how mass occurs in nature? If there is no Higgs mechanism in nature, then would the Higgs absence imply that supersymmetry (SUSY) might not occur in nature? Does SUSY occur in the form of superpartners? Does SUSY occur in nature in any form whatsoever? If the Higgs boson does not exist, then what are the best questions to ask? Are vacuum polarization, the quantum vacuum, energy, spacetime, and quantum information merely approximation generated from Fredkin-Wolfram information below the Planck scale?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersymmetry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Fredkin
************
Note added Dec. 14, 2011 CE: For an explanation of the importance of the Higgs boson, see
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/c...g-for-the-higgs
Guest Post|Matt Strassler on Hunting for the Higgs|Cosmic Variance .
Posted by: David Brown
Even if we find no smoking gun for or against the theory, there is a program which could someday lead to falsifiable predictions. It is to understand the landscape of string vacua, and derive a probability measure on a set of vacua based on quantum cosmology. Michael R. Douglas
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.6626v2.pdf The string landscape and low energy supersymmetry, 2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory_landscape
Are string theorys two most important problems: (1) finding a physically valid way of putting a probability measure on the multiverse of alternate universes and (2) finding a physically valid set of axioms for string theory and quantum field theory?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_sixth_problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang-M...ce_and_mass_gap
Are the ideas of Koide, Lestone, Breakstone, and Gerald Rosen essential for understanding the free parameters in the Standard Model of particle physics?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Harris_Rosen
Consider the Mligrom Denial Hypothesis:
The main problem with string theory is that string theorists fail to realize that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modifi...tonian_dynamics
Is there a Kepler of contemporary cosmology? What approach might solve the measurement problem for the string multiverse? Consider the Fuzzy Tensor Duality Conjecture: There exists a mathematical isomorphism from 8 copies of the Leech lattice supporting superstring vibration to three copies of SO(64) supporting Koide 3-generation dynamics and fuzzy energy tensors. This hypothetical isomorphism establishes a duality between superstrings and fuzzy energy tensors thus enabling the calculation of all the free parameters of the Standard Model of particle physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leech_lattice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koide_formula
Does Fredkin-Wolfram information create a foundation for quantum information? Does the multiverse undergo a cycle of big bangs based upon Fredkin-Wolfram information? If the Higgs boson had a larger rest mass, then would the multiuniverse undergo a cycle of big bangs with a shorter cycle time?
Posted by: David Brown
To my growing incredulity, each observation that was puzzling in the context of dark matter turned out to be confirmation of one of Milgroms long standing predictions. Stacy McGaugh
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/darkmatter/LCDMriff.html Through a Universe Darkly - University of Maryland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modifi...tonian_dynamics MOND
Does the explanation of MOND involve string theory? Is Lestones heuristic string theory empirically valid?
According to the paper Physics based calculation of the fine structure constant by J. P. Lestone, the fine structure constant calculated here suggests that the forces between fundamental particles are due to the exchange of bosons between particles having both a surface area and an effective temperature, and the internal structure of electrons is string-like with an internal length scale close to 3 times the particles circumference.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics.gen-ph/0703151v6 Physics based calculation of the fine structure constant by J. P. Lestone
Are the ideas of Lestone, Koide, and Gerald Rosen essential for understanding the foundations of physics?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koide_formula
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Harris_Rosen
Consider 3 hypotheses:
MILGROM DENIAL HYPOTHESIS: The main problem with string theory is that string theorists fail to realize that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology.
SUPERSTRING LEECH LATTICE HYPOTHESIS: Superstring vibrations are constrained by the Leech lattice.
MONSTROUS MOONSHINE FOUNDATIONAL HYPOTHESIS; The foundations of physics have a valid explanation in terms of monstrous moonshine and superstring theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monstrous_moonshine
Is the Leech lattice essential for understanding the foundations of physics?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leech_lattice
Does Fredkin-Wolfram information create quantum information? Consider 3 logically distinct possibilities:
(1) nature is infinite and fundamentally nondigital;
(2) nature is infinite and digital;
(3) nature is finite and digital.
Do the 3 preceding possibilities each require M-theory?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory
According to Wikipedia, the Leech lattice has a density of (pi^12)/(12 factorial).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leech_lattice
Can the fine-structure constant be calculated in terms of the Leech lattice?
According to Wolfram Alpha:
(pi^12)/(12 factorial) = .0019295743094039 approx.
(193/51) * .0019295743094039/(fine structure constant) = 1.00065256... approx.
Note that 51 = 3 * 17. The primes 2, 3, 13, 17, 41, 59, 167, 193, 227, and 251 occur as prime factors in Breakstones Table 3.
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/930235/files/0602118.pdf Empirical Relationships among Lepton and Quark Masses by A. Breakstone, 2006
The primes 3 and 17 occur among the prime factors of the monster group.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_group
Is Lestones calculation of the fine-structure constant empirically valid?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant
Can calculating the fine-structure constant in two distinct ways indicate a method for finding an important duality theorem in string theory?
Consider the following problem:
Find Model1 generated by 8 copies of the Leech lattice. Find Model2 generated by 3 copies of SO(64). Find an isomorphism from Model1 onto Model2 which is interesting in terms of Lie group theory.
Can the preceding problem (or a similar problem) lead to an isomorphism between vibrating superstrings and fuzzy energy tensors?
Posted by: David Brown
Gilsons estimate for the fine-structure constant uses the cosine and tangent functions and the numerical constants pi, 137, and 29.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant
Is Gilsons estimate somehow related to the Fibonacci series?
Note that log(29)/log((1 + sqrt(5))/2) = 6.997533424224137... approx.
The number (1 + sqrt(5))/2 plays an essential role in the Fibonacci series.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_series
The vast majority of numerical estimates have no particular meaning. A few numerical estimates have primary meanings, secondary meanings, or tertiary meaning. By secondary and tertiary, I mean that secondary meanings can sometimes be derived from primary meanings, and tertiary meanings can sometimes be derived from secondary meanings. Does Gilsons estimate have a primary meaning or, at least, a secondary meaning?
Consider the following facts (A), (B), and (C):
(A) 71 is the largest prime divisor of the order of monster group.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_group
(B) 72 = 8 * 9.
(C) 73 satisfies 137 = 64 + 73.
According to Wolfram Alpha:
71 * (fine structure constant) - .518112032 = 4.558 * 10^-10 approx.
continued fraction for .518112032 = [0; 1, 1, 13, 3, 3, 3, 17, 1, 1, 1, 5, 13, 1]
expand the continued fraction [0; 1, 1, 13] (answer = 14/27)
expand the continued fraction [0; 1, 1, 13, 3] (answer = 43/83)
137/ exp(90.0/137) = 71.026 approx
137/ exp(19/29) = 71.151294 approx.
(137 / exp(5/8)) - (73 + 1/3) = - .0025 approx.
((neutron mass)/(proton mass)) - (1/(72 * pi**2)) + 1/(352 * pi**4) - 1/(1230 * pi**6) = 1, approximately.
((neutron mass)/(proton mass)) - 1/(6 * 73 * (zeta(2)) = .99999
((neutron mass)/(proton mass)) - 1/(6 * 100 * zeta(3)) = .999992
How is the Holographic Principle related to Fouries series?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle
Does the success of the Fredkin-Wolfram program require the use of Lebesgues constants?
For the Lebesgue constants in the theory of Fourier series, we have estimates:
L0 = 1
L1 = 1/3 +(2 * sqrt(3))/2 = 1.435991124
L2 = 1.642188435 approx.
L3 = 1.778322861 approx.
L4 = 1.880080599 approx.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LebesgueConstants.html Lebesgue Constants from Wolfram MathWorld
BIG QUESTION:
Does L4 have significance in quantum field theory?
The current value of the multiplicative inverse of the fine structure constant is
137.035999074(44).
137/1.88 = 72.87234 approx.
137 - 72 * 1.88 = 1.64 approx. (roughly L2). I MAKE THE GUESS THAT THIS IS NOT A MEANINGLESS COINCIDENCE. THERE IS SOME STRING ESTIMATE THAT EXPLAINS IT. Perhaps this guess is wrong.
Many of my statements are wrong or meaningless, but at least part of my thinking is correct because of empirical evidence.
MY THINKING IS AS FOLLOWS: Consider 4 main thoughts:
(1) Milgrom is the Kepler of modern cosmology. (fact not opinion OVERWHELMING EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE)
Conjectures:
(2) There are 6 quarks because there are 6 pariah groups.
(3) Lestones heuristic string theory is correct.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics.gen-ph/0703151v6 Physics based calculation of the fine structure constant by J. P. Lestone
(4) Koides formula is essential for understanding the foundations of physics.
Most of the following is repetition from previous postings:
CKM CP-violating phase = .995 approx.
CAN THE 3 GAUGE COUPLING CONSTANTS BE EXPLAINED IN TERMS OF THE MONSTER GROUP?
In the particle theorists Standard Model, for the 3 gauge coupling constants, there are the approximate values:
U(1) gauge coupling: .357 (Note that 81/227 = .356828 and 227 occurs in Breakstones Table 3. Note that (6 * 19 + 2)/(17 * 19 + 2) = 116/325 = .356923 )
SU(2) gauge coupling: .652 (Note that (4 * 29 + 2)/(6 * 29 + 7) = (6 * 19 + 4)/ (10 * 19 - 9) = 118/181 = .65193370... approx.)
SU(3) gauge coupling: 1.221 (Note that 105/86 = 1.22093 = (3 * 29 + 19 - 1)/(3 * 29 -1).)
these 3 dimensionless constants are determined by applying theory to experimental measurements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0308144v2 Trying to Understand Standard Model parameters by C. D. Froggart & H. B. Nielsen, 2003
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0108195v6 The Standard Model in 2001 by J. L. Rosner
According to Wolfram Alpha,
1 + pi/16 + pi^2/400 = 1.22102355...
Is the preceding formula an approximation to a power series in pi that yields the SU(3) gauge coupling constant?
According to NKS Chapter 9, Wolframs mobile automaton operates below the Planck scale with a Wolframian updating parameter that gradually builds approximations to time, space, and energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science
If Wolfram is correct, then all the free parameters of the Standard Model should have precise representations in terms of Newtons gravitational constant, Plancks constant, the speed of light, and the Fredkin-Wolfram constant. If advocates of NKS Chapter 9 generate thousands of formulas that attempt to explain the free parameters of the Standard Model, then many of the formulas might be meaningless or misleading but valuable truths might emerge.
IF WOLFRAM IS CORRECT, THEN IT IS MANDATORY TO CORRECTLY CALCULATE ALL THE FREE PARAMETERS OF THE STANDARD MODEL.
Does the arithmetic mean of the 3 gauge coupling constants have some interesting physical interpretation in terms of superstring theory?
((1.221 + .652 + .357)/3)^(1/64) = .99537618...
Most physicists would dismiss the preceding estimate as a meaningless numerical fact. However, according to the Fuzzy Energy Tensor Conjecture, there might be a 64 by 64 M-theoretical formula that represents (1.221 + .652 + .357)/3 as a trace derived from 64 fuzzy energy tensors on the 11-dimensional mystery domain. (See the posting NKS-modified M-theory: vibrating superstrings or fuzzy energy tensors? at nks forum applied nks.) This particular arithmetic mean might somehow measure how the unified forces govern the multiverse. If this physical hypothesis is correct, then the (1/64)th root of the arithmetic mean of the 3 gauge coupling constants might be expandable in terms of a power series in some physically significant number.
If there are trace formulas and determinant formulas for all the physical constants in terms of the Fuzzy Energy Tensor Conjecture, then the formula
(pi * (5/8) * (3/8))^(1/64) = .99522856...
might derive from a determinant formula in which pi, 5/8, and 3/8 represent a unification of gravitation with (SU(8) matter) X (SU(8) antimatter) and with an embedding of SU(3) X SU(5) into SU(8).
According to Wolfram Alpha, we have the following 4 numerical facts: (** = ^)
((2 pi) **6)** (1/64) = 1.2340646674626...
(((mass up quark) ** 3) * ((mass down quark) **3) / ((mass electron)**6))**(1/64) = 1.19
(((mass strange quark) ** 3) * ((mass charm quark) **3) / ((mass muon)**6))**(1/64) = 1.12
(((mass top quark) ** 3) * ((mass bottom quark) **3) / ((mass tau)**6))**(1/64) = 1.2908
Do the 4 preceding formulas have explanations in terms of the hypothesis of the fuzzy energy tensor formulation of M-theory and the hypothesis of the 3 energy-density levels for strings? (See the posting Does D-brane M-theory with the Higgs boson resolve the vacuum catastrophe? at nks forum applied nks.)
In 2006, Carl A. Brannen, generalizing the work of Koide, predicted the neutrino values:
m1 = .0003834625 eV
m2 = .008913487 eV
m3 = .05071180 eV .
http://brannenworks.com/MASSES.pdf Koide Mass Formula for Neutrinos 2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino
According to Wolfram Alpha,
(5 pi)**(1/8) = 1.41096 ...
(((electron mass) * c**2)/(.0003834625 eV))**(1/64) = 1.38858795
(((muon mass) * c**2)/(.008913487 eV))**(1/64) = 1.43682542 (surprisingly close to L1???)
(((tau mass) * c**2)/(.05071180 eV))**(1/64) = 1.46136 .
If Brannens predictions are correct, then can M-theory explain the preceding 3 numerical estimates? Does M-theory need to explain Milgroms MOND, the space roar, Lestones estimates, and the Koide formula?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koide_formula
Is Gerald Rosen on the right track? In Rosens self-interaction mass formula, what explains the factor 41/10 ?
http://home.comcast.net/~gerald-rosen/Pub%20280.pdf Self-interaction mass formula that relates all leptons and quarks to the electron
Does the success of the Fredkin-Wolfram program require the ideas of Milgrom, Lestone, Koide, Brannen, Rosen, and Breakstone, as well as the M-theorists? Has Brown overlooked a few theorists whose ideas are needed? (Consider:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.0480.pdf A remark on the Koide relation for quarks by A. Kartavtsev, 2011.)
Note that if Brown is wrong, then Lestone, Koide, Brannen, Rosen, and Breakstone might still be correct. Milgrom is definitely correct, because the empirical evidence is in his favor.
Note that:
log(47)/log((1 + sqrt(5))/2) = 8.00094137593808... approx.
log(76)/log((1 + sqrt(5))/2) = 8.999640313805507... approx.
log(123)/log((1 + sqrt(5))/2) = 10.00013737147123272... approx.
Do the 3 preceding estimates have a physical meaning?
Note that 29, 47, 76, 123 are Lucas numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas_number
Note that 123 + 5 = 2 * 64. Might it be possible that 10 copies of some fractal model combined with 3 dimensions of space, 1 dimension of matter time, and 1 dimension of antimatter time are somehow approximately isomorphic to a model of a fuzzy energy tensor model with matter time combined with a model of a fuzzy energy tensor model with antimatter time?
Posted by: David Brown
Can the number 196883 be connected with the Koide formula? Does the multiverse exist because 196883 = (59 12) * 59 * (59 + 12) ? What are the most important connections between the monster group and the Fibonacci numbers?
According to the mathematics professor Mark Ronan, the least number of dimensions in which the Monster group can act non-trivially is 196883.
http://homepages.math.uic.edu/~ronan/196883 196,883 dimensions and the Monster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Ronan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_group
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_number
The Koide formula is intriguing but controversial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koide_formula
Does the Koide function defined by (x, y, z) > (x + y + z)/(x^.5 + y^.5 + z^.5)^2 play an important role in the foundations of physics?
According to Wolfram Alpha:
(tau mass)/(muon mass) = 16.8183 approx.
(tau mass)/(muon mass) = 16.8183 - 3.925 * 10^-5 approx.
(muon mass)/(electron mass) = 206.7683 approx.
(muon mass)/(electron mass) = 206.7683 - 1.594 * 10^-5 approx.
(16.8183 * 206.7683)^.5 = 58.97025775668613... approx.
For the monster group numerologist, it is almost impossible to believe that the preceding estimate is merely a coincidence.
For x = 16.8183 and y = 206.7683 evaluate (71 * x + 47 * y)/((71 * x)^.5 + (47 * y)^.5)^2 . (Answer: .615631)
Consider 1/.615631 :
For x = 16.8183 and y = 206.7683 evaluate ((71 * x)^.5 + (47 * y)^.5)^2/(71 * x + 47 * y) . (Answer: 1.346073460734607...)
Does the number 1.346 have some meaning in terms of the Fibonacci numbers?
(3 + 5 + 8)/(3^.5 + 5^.5 + 8^.5)^2 = .34637...
(5 + 8 + 13)/(5^.5 + 8^.5 + 13^.5)^2 = .345884027...
(55 + 89 + 144)/((55^.5 + 89^.5 + 144^.5)^2) = .34601541...
For r = (1 + sqrt(5))/2 evaluate 2 * (1 + r) / ( 1 + r^.5 + (1 + r)^.5))^2 . (Answer: .346014...)
For x = 16.8183, y = 206.7683, z = 23.6 evaluate ((((59 + z) * x)^.5 + ((59 - z) * y)^.5)^2)/((59 + z) * x + (59 - z) * y) . (Answer: 1.73231) (Note that sqrt(3) = 1.7320508... )
For x = 16.8183, y = 206.7683, z = 50.08 evaluate ((((59 + z) * x)^.5 + ((59 - z) * y)^.5)^2)/((59 + z) * x + (59 - z) * y) . (Answer: 2 approx.)
16.8183 - (17 * (59/79)^0 + (2/19) * (59/71)^2 - 22 * (59/71)^24 + 44 * (59/71)^50) = .00003798... approx.
206.7683 - (207 * (59/79)^0 - (1/5) * (59/71)^2 - 8 * (59/71)^24 + 5 * (59/71)^50) = -.0000241562...
Are the two preceding estimates merely numerical accidents?
Consider the problem of estimating the fine-structure constant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant
137.035999074 - (137 * (59/79)^0 + (1/23) * (59/71)^2 + (1/2) * (59/71)^24 + 1 * (59/71)^50 + (9/2) * (59/71)^78 + 9 * (59/71)^108) = 2.8759 * 10^-9 approx.
1 = .5 + .5; 9/2 = 1 + 7/2; 9 = 9/2 + 9/2; next coefficient = 9 + 11/2
Is something going on here?
Posted by: David Brown
If nature is finite and digital, then there has to be a mathematical model resulting from taking the Fredkin-Wolfram constant to infinity. Presumably, the finite nature hypothesis requires some string theoretical model that makes valid predictions for the free parameters of the Standard Model of particle physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
Frenkel, Lepowsky, and Meurman constructed the monster vertex algebra, which has been important in string theoretical research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Frenkel
Does the finite nature hypothesis require the Frenkel-Lepowsky-Meurman (FLM) model? According to Witten, the starting point of the FLM construction is that 24 free bosons are compactified via the Leech lattice. (Compare Breakstones formula (2) with Wittens formulas (4.14) and (4.15).)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0706.3359v1.pdf Three-Dimensional Gravity Revisited by Edward Witten, 2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leech_lattice
Can the FLM model be extended to incorporate the hypothesis that the 24 free bosons vibrate at three different energy-density levels: low, intermediate, and high? Could such an extended FLM model based on the pariah groups make successful empirical predictions?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pariah_group
Breakstone has predicted lepton and quark masses.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0602118v2.pdf Empirical Relationships among Lepton and Quark Masses by A. Breakstone, 2009 revision
CLAIM 1: Breakstones empirical predictions for lepton and quark masses have considerable value in terms of particle physics.
CLAIM 2: String theory is the only plausible way to justify Breakstones empirical work in terms of the foundations of physics.
CONJECTURE (A): There are 6 quarks because there are 6 pariah groups.
CONJECTURE (B): The famous Frenkel-Lepowsky-Meurman model is part of a structure that somehow combines this famous model with the 6 pariah groups. I call this undiscovered hypothetical model the FLM pariah model. I conjecture that the FLM pariah model supports 11 string operators, M(1), M(2), , M(11). The operators M(1), M(2), M(3) represent 3 distinct energy-density levels. The operators M(4), , M(11) represent various kinds of displacements in energy-density level. These 11 string operators are more-or-less equivalent to 11 matrices in SL(12, C). For k = 1, , 11, each matrix M(k) has 12 real eigenvalues. The string operators M(1), , M(9) can be used to correctly predict all of the mass ratios based upon the free parameters of the Standard Model of particle physics. The string operators M(10) and M(11) can be used to correctly predict the 3 gauge couplings and the 3 mixing angles in the Standard Model by examining the 6 real numbers given by
trace (M(j)) M(k)), for j = 10, 11 and k = 1, 2, 3.
CONJECTURE (C): There exist 9 operators that explain the quark and lepton mass ratios:
M(electron,zerobump), M(electron,+bump), M(electron,-bump),
M(muon,zerobump), M(muon,+bump), M(muon,-bump),
M(tau,zerobump), M(tau,+bump), M(tau,-bump); these 9 operators have unknown definitions. I conjecture that the zerobump operators are string theoretically defined in terms of the monster group, the electron bump operators are defined in terms of the 1st and 2nd Janko groups, the muon bump operators are defined in terms of the Rudvalis group and the ONan group, and the tau bump operators are defined in terms of the Lyons group and the 4th Janko group.
THIRD GENERATION: Breakstones (35a) through (35c) (See pages 9 and 10 of Breakstones paper.)
(35a): (top quark mass)/(electron mass) =
exp(trace(log( (M(tau,zerobump) ^3) M(tau, +bump))))
(35b): (bottom quark mass)/(electron mass) =
exp(trace(log( (M(tau,zerobump) ^2) M(tau,+bump) M(tau,-bump))))
(35c): (tau neutrino mass)/(electron mass) =
exp(trace(log( M(tau,zerobump) M(tau,-bump))))
SECOND GENERATION: Breakstones (35d) through (35f)
(35d): (charm quark mass)/(electron mass) =
exp(trace(log( (M(muon,zerobump) ^3) M(muon, +bump))))
(35e): (strange quark mass)/(electron mass) =
exp(trace(log( (M(muon,zerobump) ^2) M(muon,+bump) M(muon,-bump))))
(35f): (muon neutrino mass)/(electron mass) =
exp(trace(log( M(muon,zerobump) M(muon,-bump))))
FIRST GENERATION: Breakstones (35g) through (35i)
(35g): (up quark mass)/(electron mass) =
exp(trace(log( (M(electron,zerobump) ^3) M(electron, +bump))))
(35h): (down quark mass)/(electron mass) =
exp(trace(log( (M(electron,zerobump) ^2) M(electron,+bump) M(electron,-bump))))
(35i): (electron neutrino mass)/(electron mass) =
exp(trace(log( M(electron,zerobump) M(electron,-bump))))
Does the preceding have any merit?
Posted by: David Brown
According to Motl, The charged lepton masses are very messy and complex functions of some parameters that are more fundamental.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/01/c...la-be-real.html Could Koides formula be real? by L. Motl, 2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koide_formula
Is Motl correct about the Koide formula? A careful reading of Cricks What Mad Pursuit would probably indicate that Motl is correct. Three numbers and a mathematical coincidence are not enough to make a conclusion. According to Crick, the only useful constraints are contained in the experimental evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_M...tific_Discovery Cricks What Mad Pursuit
What does M-theory need to explain? I suggest that dark matter, dark energy, the space roar, and the free parameters of the Standard Model are the most important things that M-theory should explain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_roar
I speculate that the main task of string theory is to geometrize Feynman diagrams in such a way as to make valid empirical predictions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_diagram
If Fredkin and Wolfram are wrong about the finite nature hypothesis, then I suggest that the string landscape is empirically valid and that string theorys best efforts shall be constrained by the anthropic principle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory_landscape
If I admit that all of my numerological efforts have been a foolish waste of time, then what?
I maintain two fundamental ideas:
MILGROM DENIAL HYPOTHESIS: The main problem with string theory is that string theorists fail to realize that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology.
WOLFRAMS COSMOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE: The maximum physical wavelength is the Planck length times the Fredkin-Wolfram constant.
Is it possible that Milgroms non-relativistic MOND is wrong? No, because there is overwhelming physical evidence in its favor.
http://astroweb.case.edu/ssm/mond/ The MOND pages by McGaugh
I speculate that there are 2 basic possibilities:
(1) Nature is infinite with a fundamental structure that is geometrically smooth. In this case, cold dark matter particles resolve the dark matter problem, but something extremely weird makes it appear that there is a significant problem with Newton-Einstein gravitational theory. The string landscape in some form should be the fundamental model of nature.
(2) Nature is finite and digital with an updating parameter governed by Wolframs mobile automaton. In this case, Milgroms non-relativistic MOND is correct, and the apace roar cannot be explained without Wolframs automaton.
Are the 2 previous speculations wrong? Perhaps so.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.3942v1.pdf Dark Matter: A Brief Review by Annika H. G Peter, 2012
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.5122v1.pdf MD or DM? Modified dynamics at low accelerations versus dark matter, 2010
http://www.ucm.es/info/electron/pub...1-Finaltext.pdf Parametric invariance and the Pioneer anomaly by A. Fernndez-Raada and A. Tiemblo, 2011
My analysis of the Motl versus Koide debate is this: The crux of the issue is whether sqrt(mass) is physically meaningful. My guess is that Koide is correct and Motl is wrong.
CONJECTURE: The multiverse converts mass-energy into spatial volume at a constant rate. This conversion is what causes dark energy.
Posted by: David Brown
Why have string theorists so far failed to explain dark energy? One of my basic ideas is:
MILGROM DENIAL HYPOTHESIS: The main problem with string theory is that string theorists fail to realize that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology.
My two main testable predictions are the Fernndez-Raada-Milgrom effect and the space roar profile. Does string snapping give an explanation for both of these predictions?
According to Patricia Schwarz, In string theory, as in guitar playing, the string must be stretched under tension in order to become excited.
http://www.superstringtheory.com/basics/basic4.html What is string theory by Patricia Schwarz
What happens if a superstring snaps with respect to the string tension alpha prime?
STRING SNAPPING CONJECTURE: There is a nonzero probability that a superstring can snap with respect to the string tension alpha prime. If the string snapping occurs in a alternate universe then the string snapping causes ephemeris time to be different from atomic time. If the multiverse is infinite then the explanation of dark matter consists of neutralinos together with the fact that ephemeris time is different from atomic time. If the string snapping occurs in our observable universe then the physical evidence for the string snapping is dark energy. The multiverse converts mass-energy into spatial volume at a constant rate. This conversion is what causes dark energy, which is the physical manifestation of string snapping in our observable universe. The process of string snapping is irreversible during the expansion phase of the multiverse. At the big stop to the big bang, all the string snapping gets reversed in an instantaneous quantum collapse. Our universe starts out with a full load of ordinary matter, and the multiverse gradually converts real mass energy into virtual mass energy via string snapping. When the process of string snapping has gone on too long, each observable universe in the multiverse undergoes instantaneous quantum collapse. The big bang process recurs approximately every 81. 6 billion years ( 1.7 billion years).
What is the evidence for the String Snapping Conjecture? The answer is the space roar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_roar
MILGROM IS THE KEPLER OF CONTEMPORARY COSMOLOGY.
http://astroweb.case.edu/ssm/mond/ The MOND pages by Stacy McGaugh
Ephemeris time is significantly different from atomic time. According to Fernndez-Raada and Tiemblo, not all of the dynamical clock-times are necessarily equivalent and the observational fingerprint of this nonequivalence has, curiously, the same form as that of the Pioneer anomaly.
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi....1139/p2012-086 Parametric Invariance and the Pioneer Anomaly Canadian Journal of Physics, 2012
http://www.ucm.es/info/electron/pub...1-Finaltext.pdf Parametric invariance and the Pioneer anomaly by A. Fernndez-Raada and A. Tiemblo, 2011
Consider the following conjecture: Based upon the ideas of Fernndez-Raada and Tiemblo, the -1/2 in the standard form of Einsteins field equations should be replaced by -1/2 + F(fundamental tensor, energy tensor, parameters from quantum gravity), where F is a positive function that is very small with respect to 1/2.
*****
My guess on string theory is there are two basic alternatives:
ALTERNATIVE 1: The multiverse is infinite with a fundamental structure that is geometrically smooth. In this case, dark matter particles exist and all, or most, of the free parameters of the Standard Model of particle physics are environmental circumstances of our particular big bang. Some version of eternal cosmological inflation should be empirically valid with the proviso that each big bang undergoes a big stop. The string landscape is an empirical fact.
ALTERNATIVE 2: The multiverse is finite and digital with a fundamental structure that runs according to the updating parameter from Wolframs mobile automaton. In this case, dark matter particles do not exist. Dark matter is fully explained by Milgroms MOND according to the Fernndez-Raada-Milgrom effect. All of the free parameters of the Standard Model of particle physics have precise explanations stemming from Wolframs automaton. Superstrings and quantum fields are merely approximations derived from Wolframs automaton.
Why might the two preceding alternatives be plausible? According to Witten, superstring theory (or M-theory) has a mathematical form that demands the existence of gravity.
http://www.sns.ias.edu/~witten/ Edward Witten School of Natural Sciences Institute for Advanced Study
There are many plausible mathematical models for string theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory_landscape
Those who deny the existence of the string landscape need to introduce new principles into physics in order to restrict, or altogether eliminate, the string landscape. The finite nature hypothesis, or some other drastic physical hypothesis, might be needed to eliminate the string landscape. NKS Chapter 9 explains how Fredkins Finite Nature Hypothesis might actually occur in terms of physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science
*****
What is the motivation for introducing the concept of string snapping? String theorists seem unable to explain the empirical evidence that the cosmological constant is nonzero. The observable universe seems to expanding faster than the string theorists of the 1980s believed. If some string process can convert energy into spatial volume, then sqrt(mass) has a physical meaning and the unity of time-space-energy has a physical manifestation. If a string paradoxically exceeds its natural string tension then there might be a gravitational analogue of Cherenkov radiation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation
The gravitational analogue of Cherenkov radiation might be manifested as excess gravitational redshift explaining Milgroms MOND and dark matter. String snapping in an observable universe might produce dark energy in that observable universe while contributing to excess gravitational redshift everywhere throughout the multiverse.
What might be the true explanation for dark energy? Are MOND and the space roar really the keys to understanding the foundations of physics? Is superstring theory really the only game in town? According to Edward Witten, quoted on page 93 of Superstrings: A Theory of Everything, In the case of a violin string, the different harmonics correspond to different sounds. In the case of a superstring, the different harmonics correspond to different elementary particles.
http://books.google.com/books?isbn=052143775X Superstrings: A Theory of Everything? by P. C. W. Davies and Julian Russell Brown, 1992
Physicists are waiting for string theorists to answer the following question: In the case of a superstring, what corresponds to dark energy?
Posted by: David Brown
What are the meanings of Milgroms gravitational acceleration law and the Koide formula?
Is the Raada-Milgrom effect empirically valid? Does the Koide formula lead to valid empirical predictions for the free parameters of the Standard Model of particle physics? Is Lestones heuristic string theory closely related to Milgroms gravitational acceleration law and to the Koide formula?
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics.gen-ph/0703151v6 Physics based calculation of the fine structure constant by J. P. Lestone
Consider 2 hypotheses:
MILGROM DENIAL HYPOTHESIS: The main problem with string theory is that string theorists fail to realize that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology.
KOIDE DENIAL HYPOTHESIS: String theorists are unable to explain dark energy because they fail to realize that the Koide formula is essential for understanding the foundations of physics.
Why might the 2 preceding hypotheses be correct? Study of the work of McGaugh and Kroupa might strongly suggest that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology.
http://astroweb.case.edu/ssm/mond/ The MOND pages by Stacy McGaugh
http://www.astro.uni-bonn.de/~pavel..._cosmology.html Pavel Kroupa: Dark Matter, Cosmology and Progress website
If sqrt(mass) is not a physically meaningful concept, then the Koide formula is perhaps a meaningless numerical coincidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koide_formula
Does a nonzero cosmological constant suggest that sqrt(mass) might have a profound physical significance?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
The nonzero cosmological constant might suggest that the universe is losing gravitational energy and gaining more spatial volume than astrophysicists of the 1980s suspected. During a Planck time interval, is it possible that the multiverse converts real-mass energy into spatial volume together with virtual mass-energy? Is it possible for a superstring to snap, and, if so, what would that mean in terms of physical evidence? If a violin string is in frictional contact with a violin bow and then the string snaps, the string loses a source of frictional heat. Does a snapped superstring become quantum vacuum contributing to gravitational expansion? What are the two main pieces of evidence that alternate universes exist? Could the answer to the previous question be dark matter and dark energy? Could non-relativistic string theory make interesting predictions? Consider the following 4 hypotheses of center-of-mass:
(1) Center of mass is never a dimensionless point.
(2) A massive bosons center of mass is a 1-sphere.
(3) A leptons center of mass is a 2-sphere.
(4) A baryons center of mass is a 3-sphere.
Would the 4 preceding hypotheses, if true, severely restrict superstring vibration?
Consider hypotheses (A) through (F):
(A) Direct or indirect measurement means that virtual mass-energy is localized to some particular observable universe in the multiverse.
(B) Virtual mass-energy that is neither directly nor indirectly measured remains spread among all of the alternate universes in the multiverse.
(C) The alternate universes undergo a repeating cycle of big bangs and big stops according to the Wolframian updating parameter in Wolframs mobile automaton.
(D) Superstrings are undetectable by both direct and indirect measurement. An unsnapped superstring remains spread across all the alternate universes in the multiverse. A snapped superstring appears as part of the virtual mass-energy of the quantum vacuum.
(E) Dark energy is indirect evidence for snapping of superstrings in a particular observable universe as superstring energy is converted to spatial volume at a constant rate over a Planck time interval. Dark matter is indirect evidence for snapping of superstrings throughout the multiverse as superstring snapping causes virtual gravitational waves of virtual superstring energy.
(F) The multiverse recycles in approximately 81.6 billion years ( 1.7 billion years). The multiverse converts real energy into spatial volume with virtual energy during the expansion phase. During each big stop to a big stop to a big bang, the multiverse converts all of the spatial volume with virtual energy into the real energy of a big bang. The process is part of the finite state machine that is roughly described in NKS Chapter 9.
Do the preceding hypotheses deserve a grade of F? The alleged Raada-Milgrom effect and the space roar profile prediction should decide the issue.
Does the Koide formula lead to a better understanding of the Standard Model? Should the goal be to predict the most outcomes with the fewest free parameters? According to Lawrence J. Hall, It may be that predictive scheme for fermionic masses, depending on far fewer than the 13 flavor couplings of the Standard Model, is a prerequisite for the development of a fundamental theory of fermionic masses. Indeed such a predictive scheme for fermionic masses would start looking very much like a fundamental theory if it involved few enough parameters.
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wr...c/ssi92-001.pdf Predicting Quark and Neutrino Masses and Mixings by Lawrence J. Hall, 1993
Are all the fundamental masses in the universe related to the electron mass by formulas from string theory?
Witten (page 54, Table 2 of Three-Dimensional Gravity Revisited) gives the dimensions of the first 12 monster representations. The table begins with the following four numbers: 1, 196883, 2129687, and 842609326.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0706.3359v1.pdf Three-Dimensional Gravity Revisited by Edward Witten, 2007
Note the following estimate (according to Wolfram Alpha):
For w = 1, x = 196883/2, y = 21296876/4, z = 842609326./8 evaluate (w + x + y + z)/(w^.5 + x^.5 + y^.5 + z^.5)^2 (Result: .667065)
Posted by: David Brown
t Hooft conjectures that Beyond Superstring Theory, there is something really simple it is conceptually simple, but mathematically hard
http://www.ccsem.infn.it/issp2012/d...superstring.pdf Beyond Relativistic Quantum String Theory or Discreteness and Determinism in Superstrings by Gerard t Hooft, Erice, June 27 and July 1, 2012
According to t Hooft, a deterministic cellular automaton in one space- and one time dimension can be mapped onto a bosonic quantum field theory on a 1+1 dimensional lattice. We now also show that a cellular automaton in 1+1 dimensions that processes only ones and zeros, can be mapped into a fermionic field theory in a similar way.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.3612v2.pdf Discreteness and Determinism in Superstrings by t Hooft, 2012
In the preceding paper, t Hooft has A New Kind of Science as reference #7. In my opinion, a cellular automaton below the Planck scale uses Fredkin time, Fredkin distance, and Fredkin digit transition so that care needs to be used when discussing energy and quantum states below the Planck scale. I think that, so far, t Hooft has ignored 3 important questions:
Is Milgrom the Kepler of contemporary cosmology? Is sqrt(mass) = area? Is the space roar essential for understanding the foundations of physics?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_roar
Could an empirically valid superstring simulation use the following 5 rules?
(1) Chaos simulation rule that uses pi and exp(2 * pi) to simulate two quasi-independent dimensions;
(2) Lattice simulation rule that uses rule (1) to simulate, in 11 dimensions, a bosonic lattice and a fermionic lattice;
(3) Superstring simulation rule that uses rules (1) and (2) to create approximations to supersymmetry, gauge/gravity duality, and gravity;
(4) Standard model simulation rule that implements an approximation to quantum field theory from rules (1), (2), and (3);
(5) Wolframian updating parameter rule that uses rules (1) through (4) to simulate a recurring big bang cycle based upon Wolframs mobile automaton.
Is Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) extremely important for cellular automata studies in string theory? According to Jacob Bekenstein, The modified newtonian dynamics (MOND) paradigm of Milgrom can boast a number of successful predictions regarding galactic dynamics; these are made without the assumption that dark matter plays a significant role. MOND requires gravitation to depart from Newtonian theory in the extragalactic regime where dynamical accelerations are small.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0403694v6.pdf Relativistic gravitation theory for the MOND paradigm by Jacob D. Bekenstein, 2005
Posted by: David Brown
According to t Hooft, We claim that our observations add a new twist to discussions concerning the interpretation of quantum mechanics, which we call the cellular automaton (CA) interpretation."
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.3612v2.pdf Discreteness and Determinism in Superstrings by t Hooft, 2012
According to Wikipedia, In a theory with unbroken supersymmetry, for every type of boson there exists a corresponding type of fermion with the same mass and internal quantum numbers (other than spin), and vice-versa. There is no direct evidence for the existence of supersymmetry. It is motivated by possible solutions to several theoretical problems. Since the superpartners of the Standard Model particles have not been observed, supersymmetry must be a broken symmetry if it is a true symmetry of nature. This would allow the superparticles to be heavier than the corresponding Standard Model particles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersymmetry
Is supersymmetry (SUSY) relevant to the explanation of the GZK paradox?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greise...inKuzmin_limit
According to Wikipedia, The Lagrangian for Split Supersymmetry is constrained from the existence of high energy supersymmetry. There are five couplings in Split Supersymmetry: the Higgs quartic coupling and four Yukawa couplings between the Higgsinos, Higgs and gauginos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_supersymmetry
If there is only an approximate Lagragian at the Planck scale, and there is discreteness and determinism in superstrings, then what might occur in nature?
According to Professor Motl, my idea about paradigm-breaking photons is wrong there are no paradigm-breaking photons that explain the GZK paradox.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubo_Motl
I now believe Prof. Motl is correct about the alleged paradigm-breaking photons. But what does resolve the GZK paradox a new particle perhaps? Is there a new particle related to a revolution in the foundations of physics? Is t Hoofts theory of superstring discreteness and determinism important for understanding the foundations of physics?
In reply to a question about the value of t Hoofts work on superstring determinism, Prof. Motl gave this response in a Dec. 19, 2012, e-mail: Gerard 't Hooft has done great things but is deeply confused not just about string theory but also foundations of quantum mechanic. My guess is that Prof. Motl is completely wrong about t Hoofts work on string theory. Does t Hoofts work suggest a resolution to the GZK paradox? If, at the Planck scale, the smooth Lagrangian is replaced by a lattice superstring approximation, then could there be a combined SUSY?
COMBINED SUSY CONJECTURE: The fundamental theory of nature consists of discretness and determinism in superstrings. There is a combined supersymmetry with 2 and only 2 superparticles. The graviton is the combined superpartner of all the fermions, i.e., the unified fermion of SU(5) physics. The combined sfermion is the superpartner of all the bosons, i.e., the unified boson of SU(5) physics. The combined sfermion has spin 1/2, travels at the speed of light, and is the explanation for the GZK paradox. SU(8) physics represents the big bang singularity. SU(5) physics represents the big stop to the big bang.
Are gravitons completely stable? Could the explanation of dark energy consist of the decay of gravitons into combined sfermions? Could the explanation of dark energy consist of the escape of gravitons into alternate universes? Could the explanation of dark matter consist of the arrival of gravitons from alternate universes?
Posted by: David Brown
How can spacetime be completely unified with mass-energy? Is a big stop to the big bang impossible without the finite nature hypothesis?
According to Goffinet, One of the main drawbacks of grand unification theories is the introduction of new gauge bosons which, in general, break up the lepton and baryon numbers and therefore allow the proton to decay. The current measurement settles firm constraints and has ruled out many of them including the original SU(5). Another drawback, aesthetic this time, is related to the breaking of the grand unification group. Usually this breaking requires several Higgs representations which imply a rather complex scalar sector with many physical scalar particles.
http://cp3.irmp.ucl.ac.be/upload/th...hd/goffinet.pdf A bottom-up approach to fermion masses, 2008 doctoral thesis by Franois Goffinet
If nature is finite and digital, then could such a natural property solve many problems connected with the grand unification group? Is Milgrom the Kepler of contemporary cosmology? Does the Koide formula suggest that sqrt(mass) = area? Have string theorists underestimated both Milgrom and Koide and thereby missed several likely developments in string theory? Have the imaginations of string theorists given them an abundance of geometry but a deficiency of prediction? Is mathematics the physics of the imagination? Is physics the mathematics of nature? Do scientists and artists do two basic things: create imaginative models and discover natural possibilities? Is supersymmetry one of the keys to natural possibilities? Is string theory the imaginative model that explains the multiverse?
The Physics Levels Conjecture: There are 4 fundamental levels of physics:
LEVEL 1. Newtonian mechanics and classical electromagnetic field theory;
LEVEL 2. Quantum field theory and general relativity theory;
LEVEL 3. Geometric string theory;
LEVEL 4. Lattice string theory with the finite nature hypothesis.
Is it possible to refute geometric string theory? No, because the string landscape and contrived brane interactions can provide models for any plausible, or implausible, physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory_landscape
What are the 3 main predictions of M-theory? The answer might be gravity, gauge/gravity duality, and supersymmetry.
http://www.sns.ias.edu/~witten/papers
According to Witten, supersymmetry is a new symmetry structure of elementary particles in which quantum variables are incorporated in the structure of space-time. The new symmetry prevents the particle interactions that would make the Higgs particle mass too big but, again, predicts a host of additional new particles that might be discovered at the LHC, and perhaps at the Tevatron.
http://www.sns.ias.edu/~witten/papers/Symmetry.pdf When symmetry breaks down by Edward Witten, 2004
Is supersymmetry considerably different in a finite multiverse as opposed to an infinite multiverse? Consider three beliefs about the foundations of physics:
(A) The equivalence principle is 100% empirically valid.
(B) The universe is infinite.
(C) Supersymmetry predicts many new particles.
My guess is that the work of Milgrom, McGaugh, and Kroupa refutes belief (A).
http://astroweb.case.edu/ssm/mond/ The MOND pages by Stacy McGaugh
http://www.astro.uni-bonn.de/~pavel..._cosmology.html Pavel Kroupa: Dark Matter, Cosmology and Progress website
I am also guessing that the space roar refutes belief (B) and suggests that the multiverse recycles in approximately 81.6 billion years ( 1.7 billion years).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_roar
In connection with belief (C), my guess is that supersymmetry with the finite nature hypothesis might predict one and only one new particle: a combined sfermion with spin that travels at the speed of light. Are beliefs (A), (B), and (C) highly plausible? Yes, and perhaps all three of them are correct. What are the most important questions and observations concerning the monster group?
The set {2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 41, 47, 59, 71} consists of those distinct primes that divide the order of the monster group.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_group
The set {2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 31, 41, 47} consists of those distinct primes that divide the order of the baby monster group. According to Wikipedia, The double cover of the Baby Monster is the centralizer of an element of order 2 in the Monster group.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Monster_group
For the six pariah groups, the sets of distinct primes that divide the order of the group are:
{2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 19} for Janko group J1;
{2, 3, 5, 17, 19} for Janko group J3:
{2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 23, 29, 31, 37, 43} for Janko group J4;
{2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 31, 37, 67} for the Lyons group Ly;
{2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 19, 31} for the O'Nan group O'N;
{2, 3, 5, 7, 13, 29} for the Rudvalis group Ru.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pariah_group
The prime numbers between 1 and 72 are: 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number
Note that for the twenty prime numbers between 1 and 72, the only two primes that are missing from the combined set of primes for the monster group and the 6 pariah groups are the primes 53 and 61. Does the preceding fact have an interesting explanation in terms of the foundations of physics? Is the fact that 37, 43, and 67 do not divide the order of the monster group somehow related to physics? Does the fact that 29, 59, and 71 divide the order of the monster group but not the order of the baby monster groups have an interesting explanation in terms of the foundations of physics? Does antimatter exist because the monster group and the baby monster group exist?
Is the numerical fact that 1^2 + 2^2 + 3^2 + + 24^2 = 70^2 profoundly important for the foundations of physics?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leech_lattice
Are there 11 basic string operators that determine 3 energy-density waves, 4 linear momentum waves, and 4 angular momentum waves on the Leech lattice?
Posted by: David Brown
According to Maldacena, The gauge/gravity duality is an equality between two theories: On one side we have a quantum field theory in d spacetime dimensions. On the other side we have a gravity theory on a d+1 dimensional spacetime that has an asymptotic boundary which is d dimensional. It is also sometimes called AdS/CFT, because the simplest examples involve anti-de-Sitter space and conformal field theories. It is often called gauge-string duality. This is because the gravity theories are string theories and the quantum field theories are gauge theories. It is also referred to as holography because one is describing a d+1 dimensional gravity theory in terms of a lower dimensional system, in a way which is reminiscent of an optical hologram which stores a three dimensional image on a two dimensional plate. It is called a conjecture, but by now there is a lot of evidence that it is correct. In addition, there are some derivations based on physical arguments.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.6073v1.pdf The gauge/gravity duality by Juan Maldacena, 2011
According to Horowitz and Polchinski, The AdS/CFT system is entirely embedded in the framework of quantum mechanics. On the gauge theory side we have an explicit Hamiltonian and states we can think of as gauge invariant functionals of the fields. Thus the gravitational theory on the other side is quantum mechanical as well. In particular the metric fluctuates freely except at the AdS boundary. One is not restricted to perturbations about a particular background.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0602037.pdf Gauge/gravity duality (p. 10) by Gary T. Horowitz and Joseph Polchinski, 2006
According to Polchinski, Maldacenas equation AdS = CFT contains all the central concepts of fundamental physics: Maxwells equations to start with, and their non-Abelian extension, plus the Dirac and Klein-Gordon equations, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory and general relativity. Moreover, in addition to these known principles of nature, it contains several more that theorists have found appealing: supersymmetry, string theory, and extra dimensions, and it ties all of these together in an irreducible way.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1010.6134v1.pdf Introduction to Gauge/Gravity Duality by Joseph Polchinski, 2010
What is the geometry of the multiverse? Is the problem of geometrizing Feynman diagrams closely related to the question of how nature constrains superstring vibrations? Does the Leech lattice constrain superstring vibrations?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leech_lattice
Does superstring snapping provide the flow of time in a holographic multiverse? Is the unobserved portion of the multiverse, from the QFT viewpoint, similar to a hologram with an infinite number of dimensions? Is the multiverse similar to a quantum lattice of quantum lattices?
Here are 3 of my main ideas:
MILGROM DENIAL HYPOTHESIS: The main problem with string theory is that string theorists fail to realize that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology.
WOLFRAMS COSMOLOGICAL HYPOTHESIS: The maximum physical wavelength is the Planck length times the Fredkin-Wolfram constant.
PHYSICS LEVELS HYPOTHESIS: There are 4 fundamental levels of physics:
LEVEL 1. Newtonian mechanics and classical electromagnetic field theory;
LEVEL 2. Quantum field theory and general relativity theory;
LEVEL 3. Geometric string theory;
LEVEL 4. Lattice string theory with the finite nature hypothesis.
What might the preceding hypotheses imply? Consider:
The 72-ball hypothesis: There is an approximate quantum field theory in 71 spacetime dimensions linked to the monster group and the six pariah groups. The 71 dimensions are needed to accommodate all the group symmetries from the 26 sporadic groups. There is an approximate gravitational theory in 72 spacetime dimensions. The smoothing of Wolframs mobile automaton is somewhat similar to a huge 72-ball with a vast number of tiny alternate universes on its boundary, which is approximately a 71-sphere with many tiny bubbles representing alternate universes. The 72-ball undergoes a perpetual cycle of cooling and reheating of the boundary. The passage of time occurs because of superstring snapping. A superstring is either shared between the boundary and the interior or else localized to one particular alternate universe. If a shared superstring snaps then it cools off and becomes localized to one particular alternate universe. This superstring snapping process creates an excess of quantum vacuum. Superstring snapping occurs at a constant rate and explains the nonzero cosmological constant, which might also be called D-brane noise. The superstring snapping process also explains the fact that the dark-matter-compensation-constant is nonzero. A snapped string localized to one particular alternate universe reinforces the gravitational signal found in all the alternate universes. Thus string snapping cause D-brane reinforcement of the gravitational signal, i.e., a uniform excess of gravitational redshift interpreted as dark matter. There are 2 fundamental speeds in the multiverse: c, the speed of light in a vacuum found in each alternate universe, and C, the speed of light in the interior of the multiverse. All of the alternate universes are located on the boundary of the 72-ball geometry of the multiverse. The interior of the 72-ball is an ultra-hot ultra-vacuum with a speed C which is enormously greater than the speed c. Virtual mass-energy is shared between the boundary and the interior of the 72-ball. Real mass-energy is localized to some particular alternate universe on the boundary of the 72-ball. If nature were not finite, then the speed C would be infinite and the interior of the 72-ball would have zero energy-density. The interior of the 72-ball contracts as the synchronized big bangs of the alternate universes expand. When the big bangs reach their maximum expansion in about 81.6 billion years ( 1.7 billion years) then the synchronized big stops to the big bangs occur in precisely one Planck time interval. During the synchronized big bang singularities, the interior of the 72-ball recovers all of the virtual energy that it has lost during the expansion phase, and the interior of the 72-ball expands to its maximum diameter in precisely one Planck time interval. The M-theoretical fundamental domain is 11-dimensional because there are 11 basic superstring waves that periodically vibrate on a lattice consisting of (Leech lattice) <DIRECT SUM> (Leech lattice) <DIRECT SUM> (Leech lattice). D-brane gravitation controls the expansions and contractions of the boundary and interior of the 72-ball. Unified D-brane electromagnetism with 24 D-brane charges explains the Standard Model of particle physics. There are 3 generations of particles because there are 3 distinct energy-density levels in the fundamental lattice structure of the multiverse. The Standard Model exists because there are 26 sporadic groups.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sporadic_group
Is the 72-ball hypothesis completely wrong? Perhaps so, but why have string theorists failed to explain dark energy? What is the physical meaning of AdS = CFT in terms of dark matter and dark energy?
Posted by: David Brown
I posted Does Superstring Snapping Explain Dark Matter and Dark Energy at vixra.org and I want to make 3 comments on the text.
BEGIN COMMENT 1
Why is the fundamental domain of M-theory 11-dimensional? My guess is as follows:
One might think of Einsteins fundamental tensor as a 4X4 symmetric matrix:
@ @ @ @ Here the #s represent entries that have an identical partner symmetric to
# @ @ @ the diagonal. Einsteins general relativity theory is 10-dimensional and
# # @ @ there needs to be one more dimension representing antimatter time.
# # # @
END COMMENT 1
Does superstring snapping explain dark matter and dark energy? Does superstring snapping combined with discreteness and determinism in superstrings make testable predictions?
According to t Hooft, With discrete degrees of freedom one can construct Hilbert space in a quite natural way by postulating that any state of the physical degrees of freedom corresponds to an element of this Hilbert space. Reversibility in time is required if we wish to see a quantum superposition principle; the norm of all states is then preserved if they are quantum superpositions of these basis elements.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9310026v2.pdf Dimensional Reduction in Quantum Gravity (version 2, page 2) by G. t Hooft, 2009
According to t Hooft, We claim that our observations add a new twist to discussions concerning the interpretation of quantum mechanics, which we call the cellular automaton (CA) interpretation."
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.3612v2.pdf Discreteness and Determinism in Superstrings by G. t Hooft, 2012
I have made two testable predictions: the alleged Fernndez-Raada-Milgrom effect and the space roar profile prediction. Is ephemeris time significantly different from atomic time? According to Fernndez-Raada and Tiemblo, not all of the dynamical clock-times are necessarily equivalent and the observational fingerprint of this nonequivalence has, curiously, the same form as that of the Pioneer anomaly.
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi....1139/p2012-086 Parametric Invariance and the Pioneer Anomaly Canadian Journal of Physics, 2012
http://www.ucm.es/info/electron/pub...1-Finaltext.pdf Parametric invariance and the Pioneer anomaly by A. Fernndez-Raada and A. Tiemblo, 2011
Consider the following conjecture: Based upon the ideas of Fernndez-Raada and Tiemblo, the -1/2 in the standard form of Einsteins field equations should be replaced by -1/2 + F(fundamental tensor, energy tensor, parameters from quantum gravity), where F is a positive function that is very small with respect to 1/2.
What is the likely implication of combining the preceding conjecture with non-relativistic MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modifi...tonian_dynamics
I claim that the -1/2 in the standard form of Einsteins field equations should be replaced by -1/2 + dark-matter-compensation-constant, where this constant is approximately (-1/2 + sqrt((6010)/4) * 10^-5). My analysis assumes that the 2012 statistical analysis for the Pioneer anomaly by Turyshev et al. is fundamentally wrong. In any case, as pointed out by Fernndez-Raada and Tiemblo, two other spaceships, Galileo and Ulysses, give similar estimates.
In July 2012, Turyshev et al. published a paper Support for the thermal origin of the Pioneer anomaly in Physical Review Letters that claims that there no Pioneer anomaly within the statistical error for thermal recoil and other unknown effects in the Pioneer data. According to Turyshev et al., We investigate the possibility that the anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft is due to the recoil force associated with an anisotropic emission of thermal radiation off the vehicles. To this end, relying on the project and spacecraft design documentation, we constructed a comprehensive finite-element thermal model of the two spacecraft. Then, we numerically solve thermal conduction and radiation equations using the actual flight telemetry as boundary conditions. We use the results of this model to evaluate the effect of the thermal recoil force on the Pioneer 10 spacecraft at various heliocentric distances. We found that the magnitude, temporal behavior, and direction of the resulting thermal acceleration are all similar to the properties of the observed anomaly. As a novel element of our investigation, we develop a parameterized model for the thermal recoil force and estimate the coefficients of this model independently from navigational Doppler data. We find no statistically significant difference between the two estimates and conclude that once the thermal recoil force is properly accounted for, no anomalous acceleration remains.
I claim that Turyshev et al. have combined supreme excellence in physics and computer modeling with a basic fallacy in statistical analysis. When performing a statistical analysis, the statisticians should decide what is the main point of the statistical analysis. There should be a null hypothesis versus an alternative hypothesis, or a series of null hypotheses versus alternative hypotheses. Tests are done and statisticians accept or reject hypotheses with statistical degrees of certainty. On p. 3 of their article, Turyshev et al. make the following statement:
The RTGs were coated with three mils of zirconia in a sodium silicate binder. No information is available in the literature about this particular type of paint when exposed to solar radiation, especially when exposed to solar radiation at the relatively high temperatures present on the RTG outer surfaces. Similar paints have experienced both an increase and a decrease of up to 5% in infrared emissivity. Approximately 25% of the RTG coated surfaces were exposed to solar irradiation. A calculation that takes into account the relative contribution of RTG heat to the total anisotropy yields a corresponding error figure of 25% in the overall energy budget.
I claim that the preceding statement is a blatant example of the statistical fallacy of assuming the alternative hypothesis based upon the null hypothesis that This particular type of paint exhibited no statistically significant increase or decrease in infrared emissivity. The error consists of assuming a worst case scenario and incorporating this assumption into analysis the without a quantitative statistical justification. In essence, Turyshev et al. have begged the question and disguised this begging of the question within a careful and accurate computer model of the empirical data. My guess is a realistic computer model of such emissivity effects would yield an error figure of drastically less than 25%, but in any case I claim that Turyshev et al. have committed an error in statistical analysis.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.2507v1.pdf Support for the thermal origin of the Pioneer anomaly
Is Newton-Einstein gravitational theory significantly wrong? Is Milgrom the Kepler of contemporary cosmology? Does the finite nature hypothesis challenge many fundamental assumptions in physics?
According to Goffinet, One of the main drawbacks of grand unification theories is the introduction of new gauge bosons which, in general, break up the lepton and baryon numbers and therefore allow the proton to decay. The current measurement settles firm constraints and has ruled out many of them including the original SU(5). Another drawback, aesthetic this time, is related to the breaking of the grand unification group. Usually this breaking requires several Higgs representations which imply a rather complex scalar sector with many physical scalar particles.
http://cp3.irmp.ucl.ac.be/upload/th...hd/goffinet.pdf A bottom-up approach to fermion masses, 2008 doctoral thesis by Franois Goffinet
If nature is finite and digital, then could such a natural property solve many problems connected with the grand unification group? Is it possible to refute superstring theory? No, because the string landscape and contrived brane interactions can provide models for any plausible, or implausible, physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory_landscape
What are the 3 main predictions of M-theory? The answer might be gravity, gauge/gravity duality, and supersymmetry.
http://www.sns.ias.edu/~witten/papers
According to Witten, supersymmetry is a new symmetry structure of elementary particles in which quantum variables are incorporated in the structure of space-time. The new symmetry prevents the particle interactions that would make the Higgs particle mass too big but, again, predicts a host of additional new particles that might be discovered at the LHC, and perhaps at the Tevatron.
http://www.sns.ias.edu/~witten/papers/Symmetry.pdf When symmetry breaks down by Edward Witten, 2004
Is supersymmetry considerably different in a finite multiverse as opposed to an infinite multiverse? Consider three beliefs about the foundations of physics:
(A) The equivalence principle is 100% empirically valid.
(B) The universe is infinite.
(C) Supersymmetry predicts many new particles.
My guess is that the work of Milgrom, McGaugh, and Kroupa refutes belief (A).
http://astroweb.case.edu/ssm/mond/ The MOND pages by Stacy McGaugh
http://www.astro.uni-bonn.de/~pavel..._cosmology.html Pavel Kroupa: Dark Matter, Cosmology and Progress website
I am also guessing that the space roar refutes belief (B) and suggests that the multiverse recycles in approximately 81.6 billion years ( 1.7 billion years).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_roar
In connection with belief (C), my guess is that supersymmetry with the finite nature hypothesis might predict one and only one new particle: a combined sfermion with spin 1/2 that travels at the speed of light. Are beliefs (A), (B), and (C) highly plausible? Yes, and perhaps all three of them are correct.
What is the physical meaning of AdS = CFT?
According to Maldacena, The gauge/gravity duality is an equality between two theories: On one side we have a quantum field theory in d spacetime dimensions. On the other side we have a gravity theory on a d+1 dimensional spacetime that has an asymptotic boundary which is d dimensional. It is also sometimes called AdS/CFT, because the simplest examples involve anti-de-Sitter space and conformal field theories. It is often called gauge-string duality. This is because the gravity theories are string theories and the quantum field theories are gauge theories. It is also referred to as holography because one is describing a d+1 dimensional gravity theory in terms of a lower dimensional system, in a way which is reminiscent of an optical hologram which stores a three dimensional image on a two dimensional plate. It is called a conjecture, but by now there is a lot of evidence that it is correct. In addition, there are some derivations based on physical arguments.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.6073v1.pdf The gauge/gravity duality by Juan Maldacena, 2011
According to Horowitz and Polchinski, The AdS/CFT system is entirely embedded in the framework of quantum mechanics. On the gauge theory side we have an explicit Hamiltonian and states we can think of as gauge invariant functionals of the fields. Thus the gravitational theory on the other side is quantum mechanical as well. In particular the metric fluctuates freely except at the AdS boundary. One is not restricted to perturbations about a particular background.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0602037.pdf Gauge/gravity duality (p. 10) by Gary T. Horowitz and Joseph Polchinski, 2006
According to Polchinski, Maldacenas equation AdS = CFT contains all the central concepts of fundamental physics: Maxwells equations to start with, and their non-Abelian extension, plus the Dirac and Klein-Gordon equations, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory and general relativity. Moreover, in addition to these known principles of nature, it contains several more that theorists have found appealing: supersymmetry, string theory, and extra dimensions, and it ties all of these together in an irreducible way.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1010.6134v1.pdf Introduction to Gauge/Gravity Duality by Joseph Polchinski, 2010
What is the geometry of the multiverse? Is the problem of geometrizing Feynman diagrams closely related to the question of how nature constrains superstring vibrations? Does the Leech lattice constrain superstring vibrations?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leech_lattice
Does superstring snapping provide the flow of time in a holographic multiverse? Is the unobserved portion of the multiverse, from the QFT viewpoint, similar to a hologram with an infinite number of dimensions? Is the multiverse similar to a quantum lattice of quantum lattices?
Here are 3 of my main ideas:
MILGROM DENIAL HYPOTHESIS: The main problem with string theory is that string theorists fail to realize that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology.
WOLFRAMS COSMOLOGICAL HYPOTHESIS: The maximum physical wavelength is the Planck length times the Fredkin-Wolfram constant.
PHYSICS LEVELS HYPOTHESIS: There are 4 fundamental levels of physics:
LEVEL 1. Newtonian mechanics and classical electromagnetic field theory;
LEVEL 2. Quantum field theory and general relativity theory;
LEVEL 3. Geometric string theory;
LEVEL 4. Lattice string theory with the finite nature hypothesis.
What might the preceding hypotheses imply? Consider the following conjectures (D), (E), and (F):
CONJECTURE (D) The combined sfermion conjecture: Bosons and fermions are never unified except at the level of virtual energy. Supersymmetry with the finite nature hypothesis predicts that the graviton is the superpartner of the combined sfermion and that the combined sfermion is the only superparticle found in nature. The combined sfermion has spin 1/2, travels at the speed of light, and is the explanation for the GZK paradox. The combined sfermion is involved in the following gravitational energy transfers:
(1) SUPERSTRING SNAPPING DURING THE BIG BANG EXPANSION:
superstring > (gravitational energy transferred from the boundary to the interior of the multiverse) + combined sfermion
(2) SUPERSTRING RESNAPPING DURING THE BIG STOP TO THE BIG BANG:
combined sfermion > superstring + (gravitational energy transferred from the interior to the boundary of the multiverse)
BEGIN COMMENT 2
Why have I called this hypothetical particle a combined sfermion? It is a poor choice for a name. In my previous thinking, it was a paradigm-breaking photon. I am unsure whether this is a fermion, a boson, or a mixture of fermion(s) and/or boson(s). In order to clarify what is going on, I would need a mathematical model.
END COMMENT 2
CONJECTURE (E) The superstring gravitational cycle conjecture: Nature is finite and digital with superstring determinism running on a cycle of 81.6 billion years (1.7 billion years). The cycle runs by transferring gravitational energy from the boundary to the interior of the multiverse in the expansion phase of the synchronized big bangs. During the synchronized big stops to the big bangs, all the gravitational energy lost by the boundary is regained. During the synchronized cosmological inflation of the big bangs, all of the cosmological inflation occurs during one Planck time interval. The first Planck time interval consists of SU(5) (or SO(10)) physics with all bosons consisting of gravitons and with all fermions consisting of a combined sfermion that has spin 1/2 and travels at the speed of light. After the first Planck time interval, all cosmological inflation ceases. The second and subsequent Planck time intervals consist of SU(3) X SU(2) X U(1) physics. The big bang is identical to the big stop to the big bang with SU(5) (or SO(10)) physics and with gravitons and combined sfermions at their maximum energy density. The interior of the multiverse consists of SO(64) physics. Dark energy is direct evidence for superstring snapping, i.e., D-brane noise accompanying transfer of gravitational energy from the boundary to the interior of the multiverse. Because superstrings are under enormous tension, they sometimes snap and cool off, thus creating an excess of quantum vacuum and a deficiency of gravitational attraction in each particular universe. Dark matter is indirect evidence for superstring snapping, i.e., D-brane reinforcement of the gravitational signal in the form of excess gravitational redshift. The dark energy of all the alternate universes causes dark matter to be observed in each particular universe.
CONJECTURE (F) The 72-ball conjecture: There is an approximate quantum field theory in 71 spacetime dimensions linked to the monster group and the six pariah groups. The 71 dimensions are needed to accommodate all the group symmetries from the 26 sporadic groups. There is an approximate gravitational theory in 72 spacetime dimensions. The smoothing of Wolframs mobile automaton is somewhat similar to a huge 72-ball with a vast number of tiny alternate universes on its boundary, which is approximately a 71-sphere with many tiny bubbles representing alternate universes. The alternate universes are arranged in pairs with matter time in one member of the pair and with antimatter time in the other member of the pair. All of the alternate universes remain on the boundary and are informationally bound together through the interior of the 72-ball. The 72-ball undergoes a perpetual cycle of cooling and reheating of the boundary. The passage of time occurs because of superstring snapping. A superstring is either shared between the boundary and the interior or else localized to one particular alternate universe. If a shared superstring snaps then it cools off and becomes localized to one particular alternate universe. This superstring snapping process creates an excess of quantum vacuum. Superstring snapping occurs at a constant rate and explains the nonzero cosmological constant, which might also be called D-brane noise. The superstring snapping process also explains the fact that the dark-matter-compensation-constant is nonzero. A snapped string localized to one particular alternate universe reinforces the gravitational signal found in all the alternate universes. Thus string snapping cause D-brane reinforcement of the gravitational signal, i.e., a uniform excess of gravitational redshift interpreted as dark matter. There are 2 fundamental speeds in the multiverse: c, the speed of light in a vacuum found in each alternate universe, and C, the speed of light in the interior of the multiverse. All of the alternate universes are located on the boundary of the 72-ball geometry of the multiverse. The interior of the 72-ball is an ultra-hot ultra-vacuum with a speed C which is enormously greater than the speed c. Virtual mass-energy is shared between the boundary and the interior of the 72-ball. Real mass-energy is localized to some particular alternate universe on the boundary of the 72-ball. If nature were not finite, then the speed C would be infinite and the interior of the 72-ball would have zero energy-density. The interior of the 72-ball contracts as the synchronized big bangs of the alternate universes expand. When the big bangs reach their maximum expansion in about 81.6 billion years ( 1.7 billion years) then the synchronized big stops to the big bangs occur in precisely one Planck time interval. During the synchronized big bang singularities, the interior of the 72-ball recovers all of the virtual energy that it has lost during the expansion phase, and the interior of the 72-ball expands to its maximum diameter in precisely one Planck time interval. The M-theoretical fundamental domain is 11-dimensional because there are 11 basic superstring waves that periodically vibrate on a lattice consisting of (Leech lattice) <DIRECT SUM> (Leech lattice) <DIRECT SUM> (Leech lattice). D-brane gravitation controls the expansions and contractions of the boundary and interior of the 72-ball. Unified D-brane electromagnetism with 24 D-brane charges explains the Standard Model of particle physics. There are 3 generations of particles because there are 3 distinct energy-density levels in the fundamental lattice structure of the multiverse. The Standard Model exists because there are 26 sporadic groups.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sporadic_group
BEGIN COMMENT 3
How can this 72-ball concept yield 4 dimensional spacetime? There are 3 dimensions of 24-dimensional Leech lattice, so that when the vibrating Leech lattices are measured with long-wavelength devices the 72 dimensions of motion appear to be only 3 dimensions of vibration or motion.
END COMMENT 3
Is the 72-ball hypothesis completely wrong? Perhaps so, but why have string theorists failed to explain dark energy? What is the physical meaning of AdS = CFT in terms of dark matter and dark energy?
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