David Brown
Registered: May 2009
Posts: 173 
Is the space roar profile overwhelming empirical evidence for NKS Chapter 9?
In the year 2002 CE, Stephen Wolfram published “A New Kind of Science” (NKS) and claimed that his ideas would revolutionize science and technology. Reviews of the book were, in general, somewhat negative. For example, consider the Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg’s review:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15762 .
From “Our whole universe may be governed by a single underlying simple program” in Wolfram’s “quick_takes”:
“… building on the discovery that even simple programs can yield highly complex behavior, “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 simple short program that represents a truly fundamental model of the universe, and which if run for long enough would reproduce the behavior of our world in every detail.”
http://wolframscience.com/reference/quick_takes.html
Within the past 5 years, NASA scientists with the PI (principal investigator) Alan Kogut discovered space roar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_roar — for background see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_astronomy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic...round_radiation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_universe .
Recently, in support of NKS Chapter 9, I have put forward a bizarre theory of Mtheory with alternate universes. Consider the following 3 hypotheses:
(1) The maximum physical wavelength is the Planck length multiplied by the FredkinWolfram constant.
(2) Mtheory describes the Wolframian automaton that underlies all of physics.
(3) During each Planck time interval, precisely one real photon exits our observable universe and enters an alternate universe, and, simultaneously, precisely one virtual photon enters our observable universe from some alternate universe.
What, if anything, is a plausible consequence of the 3 preceding hypotheses?
(A) The % of dark matter + the % of standard matter remains constant over spans of cosmological time. Let (20 + A) % denote this constant %.
(B) The % of dark energy remains constant over spans of cosmological time. Let (70 + B) % denote this constant %.
(C) The % of standard matter decreases over spans of cosmological time according to the formula: % of standard matter at time T = (20 + A) * (1  (T/ (81.6 billion years)) %, where T is the age of the universe and T is less than 80 billion years.
(D) The % of dark matter increases over spans of cosmological time according to the formula: % of dark matter at time T = (20 + A) * (T/(81.6 billion years)) %, where T is the age of the universe and T is less than 80 billion years.
Precise astronomical data allows the approximate calculation of the constants A, B.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LambdaCDM_model
.0456 ± .0015 is the % of baryon density.
.228 ± .013 is the % of dark matter. By addition, we see that
.2736 ± .0145 is the supposedly constant % hypothesized. (That is, A = 7.36, where A + B = 10.)
Observe that 6 times (.0456 ± .0015) equals .2736 ± .009 — thus indicating to 2 decimal places of accuracy that the preceding Hypotheses (1), (2), (3) together with the f(div) theory and the FWEU timing theory explain space roar. The % of dark matter was much lower in the very early universe so naturally there was a greatly increased % of electromagnetic noise — in fact about 6 times as much noise. However, much more might be true. Consider the following:
HYPOTHESIS. For cosmological radio emissions in the centimeter range, if T represents the age in billions of years of the universe at the time of the radio emission and if T < 6.5 billion years, then space roar increases as T decreases according to the formula:
Space_roar(T) = (% of standard matter at time T)/(% of standard matter now) = (27.36 * (1  (T/(81.6 billion years)))/(4.56).
If empirical observations confirm the preceding prediction, then shall there be overwhelming evidence that Wolfram is correct in his opinion of NKS?
Last edited by David Brown on 05252010 at 12:32 PM
Report this post to a moderator  IP: Logged
