Show all 3 posts from this thread on one page
A New Kind of Science: The NKS Forum (http://forum.wolframscience.com/index.php)
- Applied NKS (http://forum.wolframscience.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=4)
-- Does M-theory with Wolfram's automaton predict the ratio of matter to dark energy? (http://forum.wolframscience.com/showthread.php?threadid=1855)
Does M-theory with Wolfram's automaton predict the ratio of matter to dark energy?
Is the ratio of matter to dark energy approximately equal to 3/8 and, if so, is there a theoretical reason for this approximation? Have astrophysicists avoided coming to grips with Milgrom’s ideas for far too long? Has Wolfram’s NKS Chapter 9 received the attention it deserves?
Who ever knew truth to the worse, in a free and open encounter? — John Milton
I claim that Seiberg-Witten M-theory with neutralino physics and modified M-theory with Wolfram’s automaton both predict the Rañada-Milgrom effect, which is that the -1/2 in the standard form of Einstein’s field equations should be replaced by -1/2 + sqrt(15) * 10**-5. I predict that the Rañada-Milgrom effect shall revolutionize cosmology by June 2012 CE. (See “Dark matter: why should Rañada and Milgrom win the Nobel prize?” nks forum applied nks.) Is the problem of explaining dark matter closely related to the problem of explaining the justification for renormalization in quantum field theory? Does dark matter indicate the need for an M-theoretical revolution in the foundations of physics?
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.uni-bonn.de/~pavel..._cosmology.html Pavel Kroupa: Dark Matter, Cosmology and Progress (July 4, 2010)
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 relativity 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”
M-theory resolves the problem of the infinite electrostatic self-energy of the electron in a mathematically satisfactory way — but what about the ambiguous electrostatic self-energy of the electron? Is it satisfactory to introduce a cut-off parameter without an axiomatic justification for the cut-off? Are the foundations of physics mathematically and intellectually satisfactory in the form they have today? Is Stephen Wolfram’s “A New Kind of Science” as great a book as Isaac Newton’s “Principia”?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philos...pia_Mathematica Newton's "Principia"
“A New Kind of Science” describes a vast array of remarkable new discoveries made by thinking in terms of programs — and how those discoveries force a rethinking of many existing areas of science. — Stephen Wolfram
I think that the vast majority of physicists would say that NKS is not in the same league as Newton’s “Principia” — but I conjecture that they are wrong.
Consider Wolfram’s cosmological principle: The maximum physical wavelength is the Planck length times the Fredkin-Wolfram constant.
Does our universe expand forever or undergo an instantaneous quantum collapse at some point in the future? Our universe is approximately 13.75 billion years old but could it be hung up in a run-loop within Wolfram’s automaton? Wolfram’s cosmological principle implies that our universe is a 3-sphere with radius R(t), where t is the number of Planck time units that have elapsed since the big bang. The 3-dimensional volume (or hyperarea) of a 3-sphere of radius R is 2 * (pi**2) * R**3.
According to my physical interpretation of modified M-theory with Wolfram’s automaton, the equivalence principle is valid for real mass-energy but not for virtual mass-energy; conjecturally, virtual mass-energy has zero inertial mass-energy and nonzero gravitational mass-energy. In my physical interpretation of Seiberg-Witten M-theory with neutralino physics and with D-brane noise as dark energy, the equivalence principle is 100% valid but there is some unknown M-theoretical force that obscures most of the inertial mass-energy of the neutralinos. The following analysis applies only to my physical interpretation of M-theory with Wolfram’s automaton. (See the postings “Cosmological revolution and the Rañada-Milgrom effect” and “Does D-brane M-theory with the Higgs boson resolve the vacuum catastrophe?” at nks forum applied nks.) Suppose that the multiverse is isomorphic to a finite automaton spread across a huge, but finite, number of alternate universes. Assume that this hypothetical automaton undergoes a complete cycle approximately every 81.6 billion years. Our universe starts out as one of a pair of matter/antimatter universes. In the grand unification epoch, there is (SU(8) matter) X (SU(8) antimatter) physics. In the inflation epoch, there is SU(5) physics. In our epoch, there is U(1) X SU(2) X SU(3) physics. At the Big Stop to the Big Bang, there is SU(8)/SU(5) physics. According to my theory, the % of dark matter + the % of standard matter is a constant % at all times in the evolution of the Big Bang, although the % of dark matter starts off near zero at the time of the Big Bang and steadily increases according to the Wolframian updating parameter. Also, in my theory, at the time of the Big Stop to the Big Bang, the % of standard matter has dwindled to nearly zero. What might be a valid way to calculate (dark_energy_%) / (dark_matter_% + standard_matter_%) ? At the time of the Big Stop, there would be ∫ (|eigenvalue(1,8,x)| + … |eigenvalue(8,8,x)|) µ8(dx), where the 8 eigenvalue functions are integrated in the SU(8) gravitational space with measure µ8; call this the SU(8) term. In order to get an approximation for the SU(5) term, replace SU(5) by SU(3) X SU(2) X U(1). Since quarks are much heavier than leptons and bosons, we can discard SU(2) and U(1) to get an approximation accurate to about 1 part in 2000 (the approximate ratio of the electron mass to the proton mass). We would have ∫(|eigenvalue(1,3,x)| + … + |eigenvalue(3,3,x)|) µ3(dx), where the 3 eigenvalue functions are integrated in the SU(3) gravitational space with measure µ3. If mass-energy is linearly additive, then we would expect to get a ratio of the SU(8) term to the SU(3) term of approximately 8/3, with accuracy 1 part in 2000 but with failure at higher accuracy.
% of dark energy = .728 ± .016; % of dark matter = .227 ± .014; % of standard matter = .0456 ± .0016.
According to Wolfram Alpha, (.728 ± .016)/.272 = 2.6747 ± .0588 and 8/3 = 2.6667 — is this a coincidence? I don’t think so but perhaps I am self-deluded. I predict that when M-theorists develop a model that accurately explains dark energy then they shall elaborate my conjecture to 10 decimal places of accuracy. I further conjecture that astronomical observations will eventually verify all 10 decimal places. How is that I cheated on the 8/3 — is my conjectural argument invalid? I say this: let those who scoff at NKS Chapter 9 explain the space roar.
DOES M-THEORY NEED NEW PHYSICAL HYPOTHESES?
M-theorists seem to realize that quantum field theory is 100% valid unless spacetime fails. However, I claim that M-theorists do not realize that if you have nonlinear partial differential equations that link a Fundamental Tensor to an energy tensor of ponderable matter, then the quantum information explosion makes the Fundamental Tensor into a hyper-uncertainty if spacetime fails according to brane mechanisms. If spacetime fails according to Wolfram’s automaton then predictions are possible — but if spacetime fails according to brane interactions then you get the string theory landscape and not much else. Even if Fredkin, Wolfram, and Brown are wrong, then M-theorists still need to trim their theory according to the primary harmonics of superstrings to get a deterministic framework for approximation.
According to Wolfram Alpha, (((4 pi) + .11)**-4)/(sqrt(15) * 10**-5) = 0.9999417 … does this mean anything in terms of physics?
According to Wolfram Alpha, (((4 pi) * (1 + (zeta(2)/(60 pi))))**-4)/(sqrt(15) * 10**-5) = 1.00004822 … does this have a physical meaning?
Also note that (137.0359990 * (sqrt(15) * 10**-5))**.25 - pi/12 = .00811130 …
Can the fine structure constant be calculated in terms of pi and zeta(3) ?
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics.gen-ph/0703151v6 “Physics based calculation of the fine structure constant” by J. P. Lestone
Does Lestone have a number of good ideas? According to Wolfram Alpha,
(3 * zeta(3) *137.035999/16)* (1 + (5 * pi)/(63 * 64))/ pi**3 = .999999997…
What does the fine structure constant mean in terms of quantum gravity?
According to Wolfram Alpha, (proton mass)**2/(electron mass)**2 - 137.035999 * (( -.042294 + 4 * pi)**4) = .3425 ... does this mean anything in terms of physics? Does (4 * pi)**4 have some special significance in terms of the theory of quantum gravity?
Using M-theory, is there some interesting calculation of the ratio of the proton mass to the electron mass? In M-theory, there might be a 3-dimensional volume integral that represents the ratio of the energy of the stringy proton to the energy of the stringy electron. Suppose that there is a formula of the form sqrt((proton mass)/(electron mass)) = ( ∫ (L1**2 + … + L64**2) dM )**.25/ ∫ 1 dM, where M is a measure on a 3-sphere of radius 1 and L1, …, L64 represent eigenvalues on this 3-sphere. According to Wolfram Alpha, sqrt((proton mass)/(electron mass))/( 2 * pi**2) = 2.170824 … and 2.170824/((16 * (4 (.25 + (pi/2) * (.25)**2)))**.25) = .999149… Thus there might be an eigenvalue representation of the ratio of the proton mass to the electron mass with a randomized variance with respect to string energies. Also note the estimate sqrt((proton mass)/(electron mass)) - ( 2 * pi**2 * (pi**2 * (9/4))**.25) = 4.033 * 10**-4 … does this have physical meaning?
QUESTION: For each of the basic dimensionless constants in the Standard Model, does M-theory provide a canonical trace formula and a canonical determinant formula?
Does spatial volume undergo precisely 96 doublings and then undergo quantum collapse?
Note that log((81.6 billion years)/(Planck time))/log(((((1 + sqrt(5))/2 + .00620629))**3)* 2 * pi**2) is roughly 32. If we replace 81.6 billion years by 79.9 billion years, we still get roughly the same result. If modified M-theory with Wolfram's automaton is validated by the space roar profile prediction, then the 3-dimensional spatial volume of our universe would become established shortly after the first Planck time interval. Each doubling of the radius of the 3-sphere would multiply the 3-volume by a factor of 8 according to the 3-volume formula R —> (2 * pi**2 * R**3). Therefore there would be log-base-2(2**(3 * 32)), or 96, doublings of our universe's spatial volume before the big stop to the big bang. We would all be hung in a perpetual run-loop of Wolfram's automaton, and all of our lives would be precisely reset after a perpetual cycle of precisely 96 doublings of spatial volume.
Note that I have 2 interpretations of M-theory: Seiberg-Witten M-theory with neutralino physics and modified M-theory with Wolfram's automaton, and only the latter interpretation predicts the 96 doublings of the universal spatial volume and the 32 doublings of the universal radius for the 3-sphere. Let us consider modified M-theory with Wolfram's automaton in connection with the ratio of the strength of the electromagnetic field to the strength of the gravitational field. In my theory, there are 2 bizarre hypotheses: (1) virtual mass energy has zero inertial mass-energy and nonzero gravitational mass energy, and (2) Wolfram's updating parameter is manifested by the apparent conversion of real photons into virtual photons until the ratio of the % of standard matter to the % of dark matter is nearly zero at the time of the big stop to the big bang. Under the preceding 2 hypotheses, consider 5 facts:
Fact 1: ((Coulomb constant) * ((electron charge)**2))/((G * ((electron mass)**2)) = 4.166 * 10**42, where G is Newton's gravitational constant.
Fact 2: (pi * ((81.6 billion years)/(Planck time))**(1/32) = 87.7
Fact 3: (4.166 * 10**42)**(1/32) = 21.471690…
Fact 4: 4 * 87.7**(3/8) = 21.4134 …
Fact 5: 4 * 87.7**(3/8 + (electron mass)/(proton mass)) = 21.47 …
Why is the strength of the electromagnetic field about 4 * 10**42 times stronger than the gravitational field? At the time of the big stop to the big bang, let us imagine that dark matter is everywhere except for one electron on one side of the universe and one positron on the precisely opposite side of the universe. It would take about 32 undoublings of the radius of the universal 3-sphere to force the electron and the positron to meet within about 87.7 Planck length units and annihilate purely through gravitation working in reverse. (Note that the electron and the positron attract each other with time going forward but repel each other with time going backward — the undoublings of the radius would be time flowing backward. Also note that the distance between the electron and the positron would be measured along the 3-circumference of the 3-sphere so that pi * (radius of the 3-sphere) would represent the distance between the electron and the positron. Also note that the undoublings would involve not only matter but also dark energy and this would require a correction factor.) If electromagnetism were much stronger, then our hypothetical undoublings would be too weak to force the electron and the positron together at the time of the big bang. If electromagnetism were much weaker, then our hypothetical SU(8) unification of matter and antimatter near the time of the big bang would extend considerably beyond the grand unification epoch. Thus, the ratio of the strength of electromagnetism to the strength of gravitation is very roughly in the range predicted by modified M-theory with Wolfram's automaton. Admittedly, this not a very powerful argument, and seems to be off by a factor of 4 but it does show that the orders of magnitude are plausible. The argument might be off by a factor of 4 because my argument should have used two electrons with spins ±½ and two positrons with spins ±1/2.
Show all 3 posts from this thread on one page
Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.3.0
Copyright © Jelsoft Enterprises Limited 2000 - 2002.