Registered: May 2009
NKS Chapter 9 and modified M-theory
Does M-theory, as it now stands, need to be modified? I believe that there are 3 basic possible approaches to modifying M-theory:
(1) Add an esoteric technical hypothesis to M-theory.
(2) Add a simple, easy-to-understand hypothesis to M-theory – I mean some hypothesis that all physicists can immediately understand.
(3) Drastically modify M-theory.
I can easily believe that your theory is wrong but I find it almost impossible to believe that my theory is wrong. — Francis Crick
Everything I say should be understood as having a question mark at the end of it. — Niels Bohr
Hypothesis 1. Event horizons are weirder than predicted by the Bekenstein-Hawking radiation law.
Hypothesis 2. There is dramatic physical evidence for the Wolframian updating parameter that runs the multiverse in Wolfram’s automaton.
Hypothesis 3. Einstein’s equivalence principle is 100% correct for real mass-energy, but the equivalence principle fails for virtual mass-energy if and only if there exist detectable weird forces from alternate universes or weird forces connected with dark energy stars of some form.
Shall we agree to disagree? Let us assume for the purposes of this discussion that Hypothesis 3 is correct. In terms of empirical experiment, NKS Chapter 9 might be true, false, or irrelevant. What questions might be most important in connection with NKS and possible modifications of M-theory?
What are the 4 most important questions in the foundations of physics? What is the fundamental nature of time? What is the fundamental nature of quantum information? What is the explanation for the GZK paradox? What is the explanation for the space roar?
If the GZK paradox has an explanation within standard physics, then I believe that there is a curling-up mechanism for M-theory and that M-theory needs the addition of an esoteric technical hypothesis. If the GZK paradox demands new physics then I believe that M-theory needs a simple, but huge. new hypothesis or, perhaps, that M-theory needs to be drastically modified. If the GZK paradox demands new physics and the Fredkin-Wolfram approach does not work, then I believe that M-theory needs to be drastically modified. My beliefs concerning the GZK paradox arise from the belief that paradigm-breaking photons are a likely consequence of Hypothesis 1.
Now we come to perhaps one of the most profound questions in cosmology: What is the explanation for the space roar? If the space roar has an explanation within standard physics, then I believe that M-theory needs to be drastically modified. If the space roar needs new physics, then I believe that each tick of the Wolframian updating parameter is some sort of fundamental timing mechanism for the multiverse. My belief here stems from Hypothesis 2.
SUMMARY OF GUESSES:
(1) If weird new particles explain dark energy, then M-theory has a curling-up mechanism and needs the addition of an esoteric technical hypothesis.
(2) If weird forces from alternate universes explain dark energy, then M-theory needs an information transfer mechanism from alternate universes and the addition of a simple, but huge, hypothesis.
(3) If weird new forces connected with dark energy stars or weirdly modified black holes explain dark energy, then I believe that M-theory needs to be drastically modified.
(4) The likelihoods of the preceding (1), (2), or (3) depend upon the explanations of the GZK paradox and the space roar.
Is my thinking quite wrong? Perhaps so — but consideration of these guesses might suggest new approaches to explaining dark energy.
WHAT IS THE EXPLANATION OF DARK ENERGY? SHOULD M-THEORISTS TRY HARDER TO EXPLAIN DARK ENERGY? I think that Nambu quantum field theory is what M-theorists are now doing and that Nambu quantum field theory needs one of three things:
(a) some curling-up mechanism that yields testable predictions from Nambu quantum field theory;
(b) some information transfer mechanism that allows Nambu quantum field theory to make predictions based upon alternate universes;
(c) some replacement of Nambu quantum field theory by trans-Nambu quantum theory.
Should there be a strategy that will allow M-theory to be empirically tested?
Last edited by David Brown on 12-04-2010 at 06:30 AM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged