David Brown
Registered: May 2009
Posts: 176 
Why does space roar prove that Mtheory is empirically valid?
*** UPDATE ADDED 31 Dec. 2013 ***
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." — Einstein
"Everything happens as if MOND were the effective force law." — Stacy McGaugh
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/burn1.html "The MOND pages, Why Consider Mond?"
???
What is quantum gravity all about? Photons and gluons never escape from the boundary of the multiverse into the interior of the multiverse. On average, gravitons travel at the speed of light. A statistically significant few gravitons travel slower than the speed of light, causing the FernándezRańadaMilgrom effect. A statistically significant few gravitons travel faster than the speed of light and escape from the boundary of the multiverse into the interior of the multiverse; the escape process explains the nonzero cosmological constant and also the space roar. The space roar consists of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the inflaton field.
???
Does Mtheory provide a way of explaining the flyby anomaly?
http://vixra.org/abs/1203.0036 "Does the RańadaMilgrom Effect Explain the Flyby Anomaly?"
If X is to string theory as Kepler’s laws are to Newtonian mechanics, then what is X?
http://vixra.org/abs/1312.0193 “Is the space roar an empirical proof that the inflaton field exists?”
http://quantumfrontiers.com/2013/11...hwarz/#comments (refs. 5, 6, 7)
On 12/20/13 5:17 AM, David Brown wrote:
Prof. Witten: Do you have an opinion concerning the comments posted for?
http://quantumfrontiers.com/2013/11...enandschwarz/
— D. Brown
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 3:54 AM, Edward Witten <witten@ias.edu> wrote:
I am generally sympathetic with these observations
Edward Witten
*** END OF UPDATE
Space and time may be doomed. â€” Edward Witten
I am almost certain that space and time are illusions. â€” Nathan Seiberg
http://books.google.com/books?isbn=9812700498 â€śThe Legacy of Albert Einsteinâ€ť, 2007, ed. Spenta R. Wadia
What are the 4 greatest unanswered questions in the foundations of physics? Does the mathematics of gravitons prove that Mtheory is both mathematically correct and empirically correct in some form? If X is to Mtheory as Keplerâ€™s laws are to Newtonian mechanics, then what is X? What is the physical interpretation of Mtheory? What are 3 decisive empirical tests of Mtheory?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mtheory
Is Wolframâ€™s automaton the way that nature builds space, time, real energy, and virtual energy from fundamental information below the Planck scale?
http://wolframscience.com/reference/quick_takes.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science
There is a condition worse than blindness, and that is, seeing something that isnâ€™t there. â€” Thomas Hardy
Have Mtheorists made two fundamental mistakes: first, confusing Nambu quantum field theory with quantum field theory, and, second, seeing the possibility of a curlingup mechanism, which cannot possibly be correct because it is incompatible with the existence of dark energy? Why is Mtheory 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 Mtheory. If Mtheory is so good, then where are its predictions? They are here: the f(div) theory, the space roar profile, and paradigmbreaking photons. The f(div) theory is the one and only explanation of dark matter â€” 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 Mtheory is valid; second, the space roar and the existence of dark energy guarantee that Wolframâ€™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. â€” Leonardo da Vinci
Are Mtheorists 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. â€” Einstein
Wolframâ€™s cosmological principle states that the maximum physical wavelength is the Planck length times the FredkinWolfram constant. Mtheorists who believe in the curlingup mechanism should believe that Wolframâ€™s cosmological principle is wrong because there would not be an information transfer mechanism from alternate universes. Mtheorists who disbelieve in the curlingup mechanism should believe that some information transfer mechanism enables Wolframâ€™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 Wolframâ€™s automaton, then where is natureâ€™s proof of the Wolframian updating parameter?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_roar
Consider 2 hypotheses:
(1) Einsteinâ€™s equivalence principle is completely correct for real massenergy.
(2) Einsteinâ€™s equivalence principle is valid for virtual massenergy 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 massenergy â€” 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 Einsteinâ€™s field equations and for proving that the equivalence principle fails for virtual massenergy.
Is it not clear that BekensteinHawkingâ€™s radiation law is the limit of the finite, digital black hole radiation law as the FredkinWolfram 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 Mtheory needs to be enormously modified in some totally unknown fashion.
(b) Mtheory 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 Einsteinâ€™s field equations by another constant which is very nearly 1/2. I also think that Wolframâ€™s automaton must underlie quantum field theory.)
(c) Mtheory as now conceived by SeibergWittenMaldacena is fundamentally correct and merely needs the discovery of some curlingup mechanism that involves some esoteric technical hypothesis that only Mtheorists will be able to understand.
**********
The space roar rules out (a) and (c). Furthermore, Mtheory rules out (a). Furthermore, dark energy rules out (c).
**********
If X explains dark energy and if X is to Mtheory as Keplerâ€™s laws are to Newtonian mechanics, then what might X be? The answer might be paradigmbreaking new particles, paradigmbreaking photons, or paradigmbreaking gravity waves. How might paradigmbreaking new particles or paradigm gravity waves explain dark energy? Because of the space roar and dark energy, evidence predicts that paradigmbreaking photons should exist, my theory should be correct, and all other theories are not merely wrong â€” they are complete nonstarters. 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 â€” but the space roar and dark energy have natural explanations in my theory.
FredkinWolfram 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 12312013 at 12:03 PM
Report this post to a moderator  IP: Logged
