Registered: May 2009
Space roar and four cosmological principles
If we are looking for a fundamental theory without general covariance, it is likely that this theory should not have an underlying spacetime. This point is further motivated by the fact that General Relativity has no local observables and perhaps no local gauge invariant degrees of freedom. Therefore, there is really no need for an underlying spacetime. Spacetime and general covariance should appear as approximate concepts which are only valid macroscopically. — Nathan Seiberg, “Emergent Spacetime”, p. 10
Contemporary developments in theoretical physics suggest that another revolution may be in progress, through which a new source of “fuzziness” may enter physics, and spacetime itself may be reinterpreted as an approximate, derived concept. — Edward Witten, “Reflections on the Fate of Spacetime”, p. 24
Apart from the general predictions that I have stressed, string theory also leads in a simple way to elegant and qualitatively correct models that combine quantum gravity and the other known forces in nature, recovering the main features of the standard model. To improve these constructions further, the most vital need is probably to understand the vanishing (or extreme smallness) of the cosmological constant (the energy density of the vacuum) after supersymmetry breaking. That remains out of reach. — Edward Witten, “Magic, Mystery, and Matrix”, p. 1128
What is the problem with explaining the nonzero cosmological constant (also known as “dark energy”)? Dark energy has 3 possible methods of explanation:
(1) generalized Chapline-Laughlin approach using dark energy scalar fields associated with modified black holes;
(2) generalized Fredkin-Wolfram approach using weird forces from alternate universes;
(3) generalized Witten-Seiberg approach using dark energy scalar fields associated with particles.
The empirical fact of the space roar shoots down (1) and (3) and endorses (2).
Why is NKS Chapter 9 correct? Why is Einstein’s dream of a deterministic trans-quantum theory correct? If there is a Wolframian updating parameter that runs the multiverse, then where is the physical evidence?
Claim 1: Space roar proves, given plausible physical hypotheses, that Wolfram’s automaton underlies quantum field theory and also that modified M-theory with the Nambu transfer machine is empirically valid.
Claim 2: Recall 't Hooft’s conjecture: Four dimensional SU(N) quantum gauge theory, i.e. QCD, is equivalent to a string theory. The only valid way to prove 't Hooft’s conjecture is to use Nambu digital data and N as the number of alternate universes within Wolfram’s automaton for the multiverse.
What is the evidence for Claims 1 and 2? Consider 4 cosmological principles that might, or might not, be true:
Witten’s cosmological principle: The existence of gravitons and plausible physical hypotheses imply that M-theory in some form is the only valid way to unify gravitation and quantum field theory by means of a mathematical theory that predicts gravitons.
Wolfram’s cosmological principle: The maximum physical wavelength is the Planck length times the Fredkin-Wolfram constant.
Fredkin’s cosmological principle of alternate universes: Einstein’s equivalence principle is valid for virtual mass-energy if and only if there do not exist weird forces from alternate universes.
Einstein’s cosmological principle of determinism: There exists some deterministic trans-quantum theory underlying quantum theory.
Physicists who doubt the value of M-theory need read no further. If Witten’s cosmological principle is true, then there are two basic ways to explain dark energy: either a new, esoteric, physical principle that only M-theorists would be able to understand or a new physical principle that all physicists would immediately understand. If the second alternative holds true, then Wolfram’s cosmological principle is an obvious candidate and both Fredkin’s cosmological principle and Einstein’s cosmological principle are likely to be true. However, the point is moot, because the existence of space roar makes Wolfram’s automaton the winner in all cosmological arguments.
If you believe the preceding analysis, then you should believe that space roar proves the empirical validity of M-theory. Without M-theory, there would be no possibility of defining the Nambu transfer machine.
MAIN CONJECTURE: M-theory as originally formulated is the limit, as the Fredkin-Wolfram constant approaches infinity, of modified M-theory with the Nambu transfer machine. Here, the Nambu transfer machine requires for its definition detailed empirical data on paradigm-breaking photons that explain the GZK paradox.
Why should paradigm-breaking photons exist? If the black hole model as found in the original formulation of M-theory is replaced by a finite, digitized black hole model, then there should be dramatic physical evidence for such ultra-weirdness. A study of unexplained physical phenomena points to the GZK paradox as the only likely candidate.
Why should the -1/2 in Einstein’s field equations need to be replaced by -1/2 plus an extremely small positive constant between 1 part in 100 million and 1 part in 10 thousand? Einstein’s field equations are based upon the equivalence principle, and dark energy suggests that Fredkin’s cosmological principle is the only remotely plausible way that the equivalence principle might fail. Therefore, dark energy explains the nonzero cosmological constant according to Wolfram’s automaton, and dark matter demands that -1/2 in the field equations be replaced by -1/2 plus a very small positive constant.
Is Einstein’s cosmological principle of determinism the way of simplicity? Is the negation of Einstein’s cosmological principle of determinism the way of an absurd explosion of mathematical models?
Consider three hypotheses:
First Cosmological Foundational Hypothesis: Assuming the cosmological principles of Witten and Einstein, there are plausible physical hypotheses that imply the cosmological principles of Wolfram and Fredkin.
Second Cosmological Foundational Hypothesis: Assuming the cosmological principles of Witten, Wolfram, and Fredkin, there are plausible physical hypotheses that imply the cosmological principle of Einstein.
Third Cosmological Foundational Hypothesis: The experimental details of the explanation of the GZK paradox lead to a unique model that justifies Einstein’s cosmological principle of determinism.
Why should physicists believe Einstein’s cosmological principle of determinism? In quantum theory, if there are Kolmogorov’s axioms for probability distributions, then where do the axioms come from? The answer would seem to be mysticism or hidden determinism. Bell’s theorem says that local hidden variables are out, so if mysticism fails, then non-local hidden variables should be the answer. Wolfram’s updating parameter is the champion of the non-local hidden variables approach. Furthermore, space roar confirms that Wolfram’s updating parameter actually has a physical manifestation. Therefore, if the -1/2 in Einstein’s field equations is replaced by -1/2 plus an extremely small positive constant, then the empirical evidence will vote for or against the particular Fredkin-Wolfram theory that I advocate. If my theory is confirmed, then Einstein’s cosmological principle of determinism is confirmed. If my theory is disconfirmed, determinism still has philosophy on its side. Hidden variables are better than mysticism.
Last edited by David Brown on 07-12-2011 at 07:34 PM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged