wolframscience.com

A New Kind of Science: The NKS Forum : Powered by vBulletin version 2.3.0 A New Kind of Science: The NKS Forum > Applied NKS > Does the AdS/CFT correspondence refute Wolfram's NKS Chapter 9?
  Last Thread   Next Thread
Author
Thread Post New Thread    Post A Reply
David Brown


Registered: May 2009
Posts: 176

Does the AdS/CFT correspondence refute Wolfram's NKS Chapter 9?

Is Maldacena's AdS/CFT correspondence profoundly important in the development of M-theory but requiring corrections that take into account alternate universes? Maldacena mathematically demonstrated a special case of the “conjecture that compactifications of M/string theory on various Anti-de Sitter spacetimes are dual to various conformal field theories.” http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9711200
Do M-theorist believe that they refute the Fredkin Finite Nature Hypothesis by pointing out such things as the AdS/CFT correspondence? The AdS/CFT correspondence is “the conjectured equivalence between a string theory defined on one space, and a quantum field theory without gravity defined on the conformal boundary of this space, whose dimension is lower by one or more.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdS/CFT_correspondence
In “Notes on supersymmetry enhancement of ABJM theory” is there omission of the key question as to whether the monopole operator is modified by alternate universes? http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009arXiv0906.4333k
If paradigm-breaking photons exist, then the explanation of the GZK paradox is that the Bekenstein-Hawking radiation law is significantly wrong. Occasionally, immensely powerful photons emerge from naturally digital black holes. Alternate universes explain such anomalous photons. Mathematics is one thing and nature is another. Without Wolfram’s cosmological principle, what natural phenomena can M-theory explain?
How do M-theorists explain the GZK paradox? Is the explanation neutrons?
Does a Wolframian network model with signal propagation below the Planck scale provide the only way of using M-theory to make empirical predictions? Do M-theorists need to incorporate Fredkin time, Fredkin distance, and Fredkin digit transitions? How is it that the M-theorists believe that they have ruled out the possibility of a Fredkin alternate-universe engine with a Fredkin delivery machine and a Nambu transfer machine?
Consider once again Wolfram’s cosmological principle:
THE MAXIMUM PHYSICAL LENGTH IS THE PLANCK LENGTH TIMES THE FREDKIN-WOLFRAM CONSTANT.
Are M-theorists doomed to a future without valid empirical predictions unless they incorporate Wolfram’s cosmological principle? If an Einstein action is bounded from below then why not from above as well? Do alternate universes explain dark matter and dark energy in a natural way? What is the M-theorists’ counter-suggestion to the f(div) theory of modified general relativity theory? Is the way to use M-theory to
USE M-THEORETIC SYMMETRIES TO DEFINE THE RULES OF THE FREDKIN DELIVERY MACHINE?

Last edited by David Brown on 05-03-2010 at 07:50 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-03-2010 07:16 PM
David Brown is offline Click Here to See the Profile for David Brown Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
mdmd


Registered: Not Yet
Posts: N/A

Thank you for this useful clarification , nice post

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 07-03-2010 09:28 AM
Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Post New Thread    Post A Reply
  Last Thread   Next Thread
Show Printable Version | Email this Page | Subscribe to this Thread


 

wolframscience.com  |  wolfram atlas  |  NKS online  |  Wolfram|Alpha  |  Wolfram Science Summer School  |  web resources  |  contact us

Forum Sponsored by Wolfram Research

© 2004-14 Wolfram Research, Inc. | Powered by vBulletin 2.3.0 © 2000-2002 Jelsoft Enterprises, Ltd. | Disclaimer | Archives