Registered: May 2009
Why does space roar prove that M-theory is empirically valid?
Space and time may be doomed. — Edward Witten
I am almost certain that space and time are illusions. — Nathan Seiberg
http://books.google.com/books?isbn=9812700498 “The Legacy of Albert Einstein”, 2007, ed. Spenta R. Wadia
What are the 4 greatest unanswered questions in the foundations of physics? Does the mathematics of gravitons prove that M-theory is both mathematically correct and empirically correct in some form? If X is to M-theory as Kepler’s laws are to Newtonian mechanics, then what is X? What is the physical interpretation of M-theory? What are 3 decisive empirical tests of M-theory?
Is Wolfram’s automaton the way that nature builds space, time, real energy, and virtual energy from fundamental information below the Planck scale?
There is a condition worse than blindness, and that is, seeing something that isn’t there. — Thomas Hardy
Have M-theorists made two fundamental mistakes: first, confusing Nambu quantum field theory with quantum field theory, and, second, seeing the possibility of a curling-up mechanism, which cannot possibly be correct because it is incompatible with the existence of dark energy? Why is M-theory correct? Because it is the only plausible theory that predicts the existence of gravitons, and, conversely, the existence of gravitons and plausible hypotheses allow the derivation of M-theory. If M-theory is so good, then where are its predictions? They are here: the f(div) theory, the space roar profile, and paradigm-breaking photons. The f(div) theory is the one and only explanation of dark matter — experimentalists have merely to adjust their computer programs and the f(div) theory shall be empirically verified. Why is the preceding statement true? First, the mathematics of gravitons guarantees that M-theory is valid; second, the space roar and the existence of dark energy guarantee that Wolfram’s automaton and weird forces from alternate universes are the only possible way to explain dark matter and dark energy. Why is the preceding statement true?
Only the inadequate student fails to exceed the teacher. — Leonardo da Vinci
Are M-theorists adequate students of Einstein?
People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a persistent illusion. — Einstein
Wolfram’s cosmological principle states that the maximum physical wavelength is the Planck length times the Fredkin-Wolfram constant. M-theorists who believe in the curling-up mechanism should believe that Wolfram’s cosmological principle is wrong because there would not be an information transfer mechanism from alternate universes. M-theorists who disbelieve in the curling-up mechanism should believe that some information transfer mechanism enables Wolfram’s cosmological principle to be correct. Is nature fundamentally a Markov branching process or a deterministic process?
Why should anyone believe that every Big Bang in the multiverse runs with a recycling time of about 81.6 billion years? If nature runs according to Wolfram’s automaton, then where is nature’s proof of the Wolframian updating parameter?
Consider 2 hypotheses:
(1) Einstein’s equivalence principle is completely correct for real mass-energy.
(2) Einstein’s equivalence principle is valid for virtual mass-energy if and only if there do not exist weird forces from alternate universes.
Why might (2) be correct? If the equivalence principle fails for virtual energy then the virtual energy should have zero inertial mass-energy — otherwise the virtual energy would interact with the inertia of some measuring apparatus. Conversely, if weird forces from alternate universes exist, then dark matter and dark energy are the logical candidates for explaining the failure of the original form of Einstein’s field equations and for proving that the equivalence principle fails for virtual mass-energy.
Is it not clear that Bekenstein-Hawking’s radiation law is the limit of the finite, digital black hole radiation law as the Fredkin-Wolfram constant approaches infinity? Is it not clear that dark matter is precisely the necessity of replacing the -1/2 in the field equations by -1/2 plus a very small positive constant? Is it not clear that dark energy is precisely the necessity of replacing the zero cosmological constant by the nonzero cosmological constant?
How might dark energy be explained?
(a) There exist dark energy stars in some form and this implies that M-theory needs to be enormously modified in some totally unknown fashion.
(b) M-theory needs the addition of a simple hypothesis that all physicists can immediately understand and this will imply the detectable existence of weird forces from alternate universes. (In my opinion the only hope is to replace the -1/2 in Einstein’s field equations by another constant which is very nearly -1/2. I also think that Wolfram’s automaton must underlie quantum field theory.)
(c) M-theory as now conceived by Seiberg-Witten-Maldacena is fundamentally correct and merely needs the discovery of some curling-up mechanism that involves some esoteric technical hypothesis that only M-theorists will be able to understand.
The space roar rules out (a) and (c). Furthermore, M-theory rules out (a). Furthermore, dark energy rules out (c).
If X explains dark energy and if X is to M-theory as Kepler’s laws are to Newtonian mechanics, then what might X be? The answer might be paradigm-breaking new particles, paradigm-breaking photons, or paradigm-breaking gravity waves. How might paradigm-breaking new particles or paradigm gravity waves explain dark energy? Because of the space roar and dark energy, evidence predicts that paradigm-breaking photons should exist, my theory should be correct, and all other theories are not merely wrong — they are complete non-starters. My theory is like a horse in a horse race with 2 other horses that are crippled by the space roar and/or dark energy — but the space roar and dark energy have natural explanations in my theory.
Fredkin-Wolfram fundamental information makes Nambu digital data makes approximations to physical reality. Space roar and dark energy prove that the preceding statement is correct.
Last edited by David Brown on 12-24-2010 at 03:19 PM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged