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 > Dark energy and concepts of Einstein, Witten, and Wolfram
  Last Thread   Next Thread
Author
Thread Post New Thread    Post A Reply
David Brown


Registered: May 2009
Posts: 177

Dark energy and concepts of Einstein, Witten, and Wolfram

Does NKS Chapter 9 explain dark energy? Does NKS Chapter 9 lead (IN ONLY ONE LIKELY WAY) to plausible empirical predictions that indicate one of three possibilities: truth, falsehood, or irrelevance (because the empirical effects are unmeasurably small)?
What is the explanation of dark energy? Does the explanation require M-theory? If the explanation does require M-theory, then does M-theory need a new physical hypothesis? In physics are there 3 fundamental constants or a larger number? Is dark energy entirely due to a nonzero cosmological constant that, by its precise value, forces a unique model of physics?
**********
Consider an insight from Einstein (“The Meaning of Relativity” Appendix II):
“One can give good reasons why reality cannot at all be represented by a continuous field. From the quantum phenomena it appears to follow with certainty that a finite system of finite energy can be completely described by a finite set of numbers (quantum numbers). This does not seem to be in accordance with a continuum theory, and might lead to an attempt to find a purely algebraic theory for the description of reality. But nobody knows how to find the basis of such a theory. “
**********
Consider two observations by Edward Witten (“Reflections on the Fate of Spacetime”):
(1) “In fact, once one replaces world-lines by world-tubes, it is all but impossible to construct any consistent theories at all. That such theories do exist was established through a long and complex process stretching over roughly fifteen years, from the late 1960s to the early 1980s. Moreover, there are only a few such theories; in fact, the very latest discoveries strongly suggest that they are all equivalent to each other so that apparently there is really only one such theory.
Moreover, these theories have (or this one theory has) the remarkable property of predicting gravity— that is, of requiring the existence of a massless spin-2 particle whose couplings at long distance are those of general relativity. (There are also calculable generally covariant corrections that are unfortunately unmeasurably small under ordinary conditions.) This result is in striking contrast to the situation in conventional quantum field theory, where gravity is impossible because of the singularities of the Feynman graphs.”
(2) “…”space-time” 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.”
http://www.sns.ias.edu/~witten/papers/Reflections.pdf
In his “quick takes” based upon his book “A New Kind of Science” (NKS), Wolfram suggests under the heading “Underlying space there may be a simple discrete structure” that:
“Throughout almost the entire history of science, space has been viewed as something fundamental — and typically continuous. NKS suggests that space as we perceive it is in fact not fundamental, but is instead merely the large-scale limit of an underlying discrete network of connections. Models constructed on this basis then lead to new ideas about such issues as the origin of gravity and general relativity, the true nature of elementary particles and the validity of quantum mechanics.”
http://www.wolframscience.com/refer...uick_takes.html
In NKS, Wolfram gave a qualitative description of a finite network model that gradually builds time, space, and energy by means of an updating parameter below the Planck scale. If nature is finite and digital then the maximum physical wavelength equals the Planck length times the Fredkin-Wolfram constant. If M-theory is correct except that it assumes that the Fredkin-Wolfram constant equals positive infinity, then paradigm-breaking photons should exist. The precise probability distributions for paradigm-breaking photons might prove that Wolfram’s network model is correct and serves as the underlying explanation for the space roar, the GZK paradox, dark energy, dark matter, and the physical interpretation of M-theory.
Consider ten conjectures:
(1) Nature is finite and digital. The maximum physical wavelength equals the Planck length times the Fredkin-Wolfram constant. The Fredkin-Wolfram constant is small enough to make testable predictions.
(2) M-theory is correct except that it assumes that the Fredkin-Wolfram constant equals positive infinity. The assumption that the Fredkin-Wolfram constant is finite leads to the assumptions that there is a Fredkin delivery machine that delivers information from Wolfram’s automaton into the M-theoretical 11-dimensional fundamental domain and there is a Nambu transfer machine that transfers fundamental information into approximations of physical reality.
(3) There are a huge, but finite, number of alternate universes. Real mass-energy, virtual mass-energy, and spacetime are gradually built from Fredkin time, Fredkin distance, and quaternionic Fredkin digit transition in Wolfram’s network by means of Wolfram’s updating parameter.
(4) Einstein’s equivalence principle is correct for real mass-energy. If nature is finite and digital then real mass-energy is virtual mass-energy that is explicitly or implicitly measured by Wolfram’s automaton. Virtual mass-energy that is neither explicitly nor implicitly measured by Wolfram’s automaton remains spread out across alternate universes.
(5) Virtual mass-energy always has zero inertial mass-energy and nonzero gravitational mass-energy. If the nonzero gravitational mass-energy is negative, then the virtual mass-energy is dark energy. If the nonzero gravitational mass-energy is positive, then the virtual mass-energy is dark matter.
(6) The -1/2 that occurs in the standard form of Einstein’s field equations needs to be replaced by -1/2 plus a very small positive constant which is between 1 part in 100 million and 1 part in 10 thousand. (Empirical evidence rules out 1 part in 10 thousand, and if the answer were 1 part in 100 million then the correction would not be big enough to explain dark matter.) If -1/2 in the field equations is correct to better than 1 part in 100 million, then all the conjectures here should be wrong.
(7) During each Planck time interval, a minimum amount of energy is converted from real mass-energy into virtual mass-energy by means of Wolfram’s updating parameter. This conversion explains the space roar and is the physical manifestation of Fredkin time within Wolfram’s automaton. If the predicted space roar profile is contradicted by observation, then all the conjectures here should be wrong.
(8) Alternate universes exist in matter/antimatter pairs. Each two such pairs are mathematical isomorphic to each other within Wolfram’s automaton. (THE PRECEDING ASSUMPTION IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT SHOULD ELIMINATE MANY POSSIBILITIES ALLOWED BY M-THEORY without the finite nature hypothesis.) Wolfram’s automaton has a cycle time of approximately 81.6 billion years based upon the assumption that the Einstein-Friedmann model is approximately correct and our universe is approximately 13.7 to 13.75 billion years old.
(9) The Bekenstein-Hawking radiation law is the correct approximation to the finite, digital black hole radiation law as the Fredkin-Wolfram constant tends to infinity.
(10) The finite, digital black hole radiation law can be derived from empirical observations of paradigm-breaking photons that explain the GZK paradox. This hypothetical radiation law should then lead to the correct models for the Nambu transfer machine and the Fredkin delivery machine. If paradigm-breaking photons are not the explanation for the GZK paradox, then all the conjectures here should be wrong.
Other thoughts:
(A) Many M-theorists believe that paradigm-breaking new particles discovered in particle accelerators might soon prove that M-theory is correct.
(B) Chapline suggests that there exist paradigm-breaking photons that support the hypothesis of dark energy stars.
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050...l/050328-8.html
http://arXiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0503200v2
(C) 't Hooft suggests that physicists might need to rethink the foundations of physics particularly with regard to Bell’s inequalities and free will.
http://arXiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0701097v1
(D) If the Fredkin-Wolfram constant were too large, then Wolfram’s automaton would be technically correct but empirically irrelevant — this is one reason that Fredkin uses the term “Digital Philosophy.”
(E) Perhaps NKS Chapter 9 is correct and the ideas presented here are wrong — in that case, good luck to other people in working with NKS Chapter 9.
**********
SEVEN ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS:
What is virtual mass-energy? Does virtual mass-energy have a structure that can be understood without NKS Chapter 9? Does virtual mass-energy take the form of virtual photons, virtual gravitons, virtual electrons, virtual positrons, and so on? Can gravity and electromagnetism be unified within quantum field theory? Does the true form of virtual mass-energy prove that NKS Chapter 9 is correct? Is Fredkin correct in thinking that a finite 4-dimensional volume of spacetime must contain a finite amount of information? Is Wolfram correct in thinking that a finite automaton can model quantum entanglement with sufficient accuracy to explain quantum field theory?
If virtual mass-energy is not spread across a huge, but finite number, of alternate universes, then my ideas are all wrong. If the nonzero cosmological constant and f(div) theory do not account for dark energy and dark matter, then my ideas are all wrong. If the Wolframian updating parameter does not manifest itself in the fweu timing theory, then my ideas are all wrong. If the GZK paradox is not explained by nature’s finite digitization of black holes, then my ideas are all wrong.
**********
THREE COMPETING THEORIES:
(1) M-theory without the finite nature hypothesis predicts total accuracy of the Bekenstein-Hawking radiation law.
(2) M-theory with the finite nature hypothesis and with the f(div) hypothesis predicts the space roar profile, the existence of paradigm-breaking photons, and a totally smooth distribution of dark energy.
(3) The Chapline-Laughlin-Mazur-Mottola-Santiago theory predicts the existence of paradigm-breaking photons that support the dark energy star hypothesis and a slightly lumpy distribution of dark energy.
**********
Modified M-theory with finite nature and with f(div) is either wrong or as simple as A-B-C:
(A) If there is a Wolframian updating parameter, then it should show up in some dramatic fashion. (And the space roar is it.)
(B) If every black hole is finite and digital, then nature should provide a dramatic proof of it. (And the GZK paradox is it.)
(C) M-theory without the finite nature hypothesis suggests -1/2 in the field equations and 0 as the cosmological constant. These two values are the correct limits as the Fredkin-Wolfram constant approaches infinity. However, the true value of the Fredkin-Wolfram constant gives the f(div) theory and a cycle time for nature of about 81.6 billion years.


Last edited by David Brown on 12-24-2010 at 03:45 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 11-26-2010 11:25 PM
David Brown is offline Click Here to See the Profile for David Brown 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