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 every Big Bang recycle in about 81.6 billion years?
  Last Thread   Next Thread
Author
Thread Post New Thread    Post A Reply
David Brown


Registered: May 2009
Posts: 173

Does every Big Bang recycle in about 81.6 billion years?

Does our universe expand forever? Is nature finite and digital with a huge but finite number of alternate universes? Can we ever decide the answers to the two preceding questions? Does our universe have an expected lifetime of about 81.6 billion years and, if so, why? Does M-theory lack some simple hypothesis?
M-theorists believe that Edward Witten is an astonishing genius.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Witten
FACT1: Stephen Wolfram is an astonishing genius but he might be wrong is his theory that the multiverse is an automaton with a new concept of time described by the Wolframian updating parameter.
FACT2: Stephen Wolfram is an astonishing genius but he might be correct about Wolfram’s automaton because if we assume that THE MAXIMUM PHYSICAL WAVELENGTH IS THE PLANCK LENGTH TIMES THE FREDKIN-WOLFRAM CONSTANT, and also the validity of the fweu timing theory together with the f(div) theory, then we can tentatively arrive at the conclusion that in the multiverse among all the huge number of alternate universes and Big Bangs each particular Big Bang recycles after about 81.6 billion years.
Why is Stephen Wolfram an astonishing genius? Well, for one thing, he received a physics PhD from Caltech at a remarkably young age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Wolfram
Am I a crackpot? Perhaps. My f(div) theory is testable and if it is wrong then I am like a person who predicts a precise date for an earthquake in San Francisco and then that date passes without an earthquake. Perhaps I really am a crackpot. Consider the following hypotheses:
(1) Newton revolutionized physics and introduced Newton’s gravitational constant.
(2) Planck revolutionized physics and introduced Planck’s constant.
(3) Einstein revolutionized physics by introducing relativity theory based upon the constancy of the speed of light in free space. The speed of light is among the fundamental constants of nature.
(4) Wolfram’s automaton shall revolutionize cosmology by doing two things: first, serving as the means of the physical interpretation of M-theory, and, second, explaining dark energy, dark matter, the GZK paradox, and the space roar with the testable predictions of the f(div) theory, the space roar profile, and paradigm-breaking photons. Instead of 3 fundamental constants of nature there shall be 4 fundamental constants of nature because of the addition of the Fredkin-Wolfram constant.
Why might hypothesis (4) be valid? M-theory needs both a computational method and a physical interpretation. Wolfram’s automaton might be called a computational method. If Einstein’s equivalence principle does not fail for virtual mass-energy, then my guess is that Wolfram’s automaton probably has a Fredkin-Wolfram constant that is far too large to lead to testable predictions. If Einstein’s equivalence principle does fail for virtual mass-energy, then my guess is that the f(div) theory is correct and that WITTEN+WOLFRAM=COSMOLOGICAL REVOLUTION!
Is M-theory in some form the only way to unify gravity and quantum field theory? I answer YES! Is Einstein’s equivalence principle valid for virtual mass-energy? Does the empirical evidence falsify the f(div) theory?
I claim the following:
(a) the detection of weird new particles is equivalent to the generalized Witten-Seiberg approach to dark energy;
(b) the detection of weird alternate-universe forces is equivalent to the generalized Fredkin-Wolfram approach to dark energy;
(c) the detection of dark energy stars in some form is equivalent to the generalized Chapline-Laughlin approach to dark energy;
(d) the preceding (a), (b), (c) exhaust all plausible approaches to explaining dark energy.
Am I a crackpot? Time shall supply the answer.
**********
Why should the description of nature need 4 constants instead of 3 constants? Assume that nature uses the group (matter SU(8)) X (antimatter SU(8)) as the fundamental gauge group. If the Fredkin-Wolfram approach works and the number of alternate universes can be calculated by using the gauge group, then the precise value of the Fredkin-Wolfram constant might limit the size of the dimension of the gauge group. In other words, the Fredkin-Wolfram constant might be telling us that nature is using the smallest possible gauge group and the smallest possible number of alternate universes.
**********
In the most profound philosophical sense, is the Fredkin-Wolfram approach better than the Witten-Seiberg or Chapline-Laughlin approaches? Einstein said that quantum theory worked but was incomplete. The Fredkin-Wolfram approach represents hidden determinism while the Witten-Seiberg and Chapline-Laughlin approaches merely represent more complicated incompleteness.
**********
I criticize M-theory merely in order to praise it. I criticize the M-theorists merely in order to praise them. Witten, Seiberg, and Maldacena are immense geniuses who failed to realize that virtual mass-energy might not obey Einstein’s equivalence principle — what physicist really wants to consider weird forces from alternate universes? However, dark energy, dark matter, the GZK paradox, and the space roar suggest that Fredkin-Wolfram time and Fredkin-Wolfram information underlie quantum field theory. M-theory in some form is the only way forward. M-theory is the only hope for the Nambu transfer machine and the Fredkin-Wolfram approach.
**********
Consider three immensely great SUPER-DUPER scientists: Francis Crick, Albert Einstein, and Philip Anderson.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Warren_Anderson
Crick represents relentless reductionism, Einstein champions the beautiful model, and Anderson champions the emergent model. Relentless reductionism is superior to the beautiful model and/or the emergent model. Crick is the greatest scientist in all of human history. Crick’s book “What Mad Pursuit” is the greatest book ever written. Psychology reduces to biology reduces to chemistry reduces to physics reduces to computation of information. Believe it or not. Crick is indeed the greatest scientist in human history. Believe it or not. God is dreck no matter whose feelings might be wounded. If God cannot work miracles, then belief in God loses placebo power. In the Tanakh the story of Samson suggests that belief in God has awesome placebo powers — these placebo powers might be scientifically utilized by molecular psychology, self-hypnosis, and scientifically-controlled hallucinations. God is dreck but belief in God is an altogether different matter. Beauty is great but it might be dreck. Emergence is great but it might be dreck. Follow the empirical evidence and imitate Crick like the crazy, stupid monkey I am. Everything else is not-quite-the-best science.
*********
I love Einstein's dream of hidden determinism as the ultimate triumph of science over mysticism. I have a proof that God is dead.
Premise 1. God wrote the greatest book ever written.
Premise 2. Francis Crick’s “What Mad Pursuit" is the greatest book ever written,
Premise 3. Francis Crick is dead.
Conclusion. God is dead.
**********
Closest to the truth are those who deal lightly with it because they know it is inexhaustible. — Golo Mann


Last edited by David Brown on 12-06-2010 at 07:03 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 12-04-2010 09:30 AM
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  |  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