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 > NKS, M-theory, and Lestone's heuristic string theory
Pages (2): « 1 [2]   Last Thread   Next Thread
Author
Thread Post New Thread    Post A Reply
David Brown


Registered: May 2009
Posts: 177

Is superstring theory the only way to explain dark matter and dark energy?

Can extra dimensions help with dark matter? Maybe. … Can extra dimensions help with dark energy? Maybe. — Sean Carroll
http://youtube.com/watch?v=cxFfUsDgnaU Authors@Google: Sean Google, 2009
Is M-theory an empirical success if and only if M-theory can explain dark matter and dark energy? Is it wise for string theorists to ignore Lestone’s heuristic string theory and the ideas of Milgrom and Koide? Can M-theory go beyond the string landscape and the anthropic principle? Consider some hypotheses:
(1) Dark energy is D-brane noise appearing in the form of the cosmological constant.
(2) Dark matter is D-brane reinforcement of Einsteinian gravitational signal.
(3) The explanation of the precise value of the fine-structure constant is Lestone’s heuristic string theory understood within the context of M-theory with a unified Milgrom-Lestone-Koide mechanism.
(4) Space roar is confirmation that Wolfram’s cosmological principle is empirically valid.
(5) Seiberg-Witten M-theory with the string landscape is empirically valid if and only if dark matter particles explain dark matter and the Rañada-Milgrom effect is apparent and not real. In this case, something obscures MOST but not ALL of the inertial mass-energy of the cold dark matter particles.
(6) Modified M-theory with Wolfram’s automaton is empirically valid if and only if virtual mass-energy has zero inertial mass-energy with nonzero gravitational mass-energy and the Rañada-Milgrom effect is real with a real failure of the equivalence principle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-brane
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_roar
If the string landscape is empirically valid, there might not be a valid explanation of the precise value of the fine-structure constant. However, should superstring theory explain dark matter, dark energy, and the space roar? Suppose a new theory modifies Einstein’s field equations. If the new theory does not have an approximate form with -1/2 replaced by -1/2 + new-theory-adjustment-range-1 and with cosmological constant replaced by cosmological constant + new-theory-adjustment-range-2 then is the new theory guaranteed to fail? Does any new theory of gravity have to pass through the superstring filter?

Last edited by David Brown on 10-18-2011 at 01:42 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 10-18-2011 01:24 PM
David Brown is online now Click Here to See the Profile for David Brown Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
David Brown


Registered: May 2009
Posts: 177

Does nature contain a Lestone mechanism instead of a Higgs mechanism?

… gauge bosons may become massive, through the so-called Higgs mechanism, and the heavier the gauge bosons, the rarer are the processes mediated by their exchange. (The Higgs mechanism is in a very direct sense simply a relativistic version of Fritz and Heinz London’s superconductivity electrodynamics.)
… empty space is not a true void, but rather a dynamical medium full of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs that flicker briefly into existence and then reannihilate before traveling very far. … These denizens of the vacuum can be polarized, no less than molecules in a solid. As a result the charge and the electric field distributions close to a nominal elementary “point particle” are in fact structured. The charge is partially screened. The vacuum is a dielectric. — Dimopoulos, Raby, & Wilczek, “Unification of Couplings”, pp. 27-28.
http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~...ysics.today.pdf “Unification of Couplings”, Physics Today, Oct. 1991
According to the Wikipedia entry for “Higgs boson”,
“The Higgs boson particle is the quantum of the theoretical Higgs field. In empty space, the Higgs field has an amplitude different from zero; i.e. a non-zero vacuum expectation value. The existence of this non-zero vacuum expectation plays a fundamental role; it gives mass to every elementary particle that couples to the Higgs field, including the Higgs boson itself. The acquisition of a non-zero vacuum expectation value spontaneously breaks electroweak gauge symmetry. This is the Higgs mechanism, which is the simplest process capable of giving mass to the gauge bosons while remaining compatible with gauge theories.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson
If nature consists of strings traveling at the speed of light in a vacuum, then how can massive particles be explained in terms of string theory? If nature does not contain a Higgs mechanism, then what might explain how mass occurs in nature? Is Lestone’s heuristic string theory an empirically valid part of M-theory in some form? Are the 6 pariah groups and the monster group relevant to M-theory and, if so, how? Can M-theory explain galactic rotation curves, the dwarf galaxy problem, and the cuspy halo problem? Can Milgrom’s non-relativistic MOND be derived from M-theory in some form? M-theory implies gravity, nonabelian gauge symmetry, and supersymmetry; are there plausible hypotheses that, together with gravity, nonabelian gauge symmetry, and supersymmetry, imply M-theory?
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics.gen-ph/0703151v6 “Physics based calculation of the fine structure constant” by J. P. Lestone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_group
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modifi...tonian_dynamics MOND
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory
Consider three alternatives:
ALTERNATIVE A: Nature works according to Seiberg-Witten M-theory with the string landscape and with irreducible quantum agnosticism. Time, space, and energy are more fundamental than mass. Lestone’s heuristic string theory is empirically wrong. Nature contains a Higgs mechanism or some other mechanism that rules out the possibility that time, space, energy, and mass are at the same level of fundamental importance in nature’s mathematical model.
ALTERNATIVE B. Nature works according to Seiberg-Witten M-theory with the string landscape and with irreducible quantum agnosticism. Mass occurs in nature according to a generalized Lestone mechanism. Time, space, and energy might be more fundamental than mass, but perhaps not.
ALTERNATIVE C. Nature works according to modified M-theory with Wolfram’s mobile automaton. There is an alpha-prime mechanism that unifies the ideas of Milgrom, Lestone, and Koide. Mass occurs in nature according to a generalized Lestone mechanism. Time, space, energy, and mass are approximations created by Wolfram’s automaton. One Planck time interval of the cosmological model is an approximation created by a huge number of updates from the Wolframian updating parameter operating on an informational network below the Planck scale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koide_formula
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science
If ALTERNATIVE A is empirically valid, then the posting “D-brane noise, SFELIOS neutralino physics, and the Koide formula” at nks forum applied nks might be relevant to understanding the foundations of physics. If nature works according to ALTERNATIVE B or ALTERNATIVE C then modified M-theory with Wolfram’s automaton might be the limit of Seiberg-Witten M-theory as the neutralino mass approaches zero. Seiberg-Witten M-theory might be the ambiguous limit of modified M-theory with Wolfram’s automaton as the Fredkin-Wolfram constant approaches infinity. Of course, it might be possible that ALTERNATIVES A, B, and C are all wrong — in this, case 100% of David Brown’s ideas are wrong and the reader should look elsewhere to understand the foundations of physics and cosmology.
http://en.wikipedia.org./wiki/D-brane
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model
Can ALTERNATIVE A resolve the vacuum catastrophe? Consider the posting “Does D-brane M-theory with the Higgs boson resolve the vacuum catastrophe?” at nks forum applied nks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_catastrophe
Consider 7 questions: Does the Higgs mechanism explain how mass occurs in nature? If the Higgs mechanism doesn't work, then what does explain how mass occurs in nature? If there is no Higgs mechanism in nature, then would the Higgs absence imply that supersymmetry (SUSY) might not occur in nature? Does SUSY occur in the form of superpartners? Does SUSY occur in nature in any form whatsoever? If the Higgs boson does not exist, then what are the best questions to ask? Are vacuum polarization, the quantum vacuum, energy, spacetime, and quantum information merely approximation generated from Fredkin-Wolfram information below the Planck scale?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersymmetry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Fredkin
************
Note added Dec. 14, 2011 CE: For an explanation of the importance of the Higgs boson, see
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/c...g-for-the-higgs
Guest Post|Matt Strassler on Hunting for the Higgs|Cosmic Variance .

Last edited by David Brown on 12-14-2011 at 09:03 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 11-24-2011 08:27 PM
David Brown is online now Click Here to See the Profile for David Brown Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
David Brown


Registered: May 2009
Posts: 177

What the two most important problems in string theory?

Even if we find no smoking gun for or against the theory, there is a program which could someday lead to falsifiable predictions. It is to understand the landscape of string vacua, and derive a probability measure on a set of vacua based on quantum cosmology. Michael R. Douglas
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.6626v2.pdf The string landscape and low energy supersymmetry, 2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory_landscape
Are string theorys two most important problems: (1) finding a physically valid way of putting a probability measure on the multiverse of alternate universes and (2) finding a physically valid set of axioms for string theory and quantum field theory?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_sixth_problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang-M...ce_and_mass_gap
Are the ideas of Koide, Lestone, Breakstone, and Gerald Rosen essential for understanding the free parameters in the Standard Model of particle physics?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Harris_Rosen
Consider the Mligrom Denial Hypothesis:
The main problem with string theory is that string theorists fail to realize that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modifi...tonian_dynamics
Is there a Kepler of contemporary cosmology? What approach might solve the measurement problem for the string multiverse? Consider the Fuzzy Tensor Duality Conjecture: There exists a mathematical isomorphism from 8 copies of the Leech lattice supporting superstring vibration to three copies of SO(64) supporting Koide 3-generation dynamics and fuzzy energy tensors. This hypothetical isomorphism establishes a duality between superstrings and fuzzy energy tensors thus enabling the calculation of all the free parameters of the Standard Model of particle physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leech_lattice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koide_formula
Does Fredkin-Wolfram information create a foundation for quantum information? Does the multiverse undergo a cycle of big bangs based upon Fredkin-Wolfram information? If the Higgs boson had a larger rest mass, then would the multiuniverse undergo a cycle of big bangs with a shorter cycle time?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 09-21-2012 10:13 AM
David Brown is online now Click Here to See the Profile for David Brown Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
David Brown


Registered: May 2009
Posts: 177

Is the Leech lattice essential for understanding the foundations of physics?

To my growing incredulity, each observation that was puzzling in the context of dark matter turned out to be confirmation of one of Milgroms long standing predictions. Stacy McGaugh
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/darkmatter/LCDMriff.html Through a Universe Darkly - University of Maryland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modifi...tonian_dynamics MOND
Does the explanation of MOND involve string theory? Is Lestones heuristic string theory empirically valid?
According to the paper Physics based calculation of the fine structure constant by J. P. Lestone, the fine structure constant calculated here suggests that the forces between fundamental particles are due to the exchange of bosons between particles having both a surface area and an effective temperature, and the internal structure of electrons is string-like with an internal length scale close to 3 times the particles circumference.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics.gen-ph/0703151v6 Physics based calculation of the fine structure constant by J. P. Lestone
Are the ideas of Lestone, Koide, and Gerald Rosen essential for understanding the foundations of physics?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koide_formula
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Harris_Rosen
Consider 3 hypotheses:
MILGROM DENIAL HYPOTHESIS: The main problem with string theory is that string theorists fail to realize that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology.
SUPERSTRING LEECH LATTICE HYPOTHESIS: Superstring vibrations are constrained by the Leech lattice.
MONSTROUS MOONSHINE FOUNDATIONAL HYPOTHESIS; The foundations of physics have a valid explanation in terms of monstrous moonshine and superstring theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monstrous_moonshine
Is the Leech lattice essential for understanding the foundations of physics?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leech_lattice
Does Fredkin-Wolfram information create quantum information? Consider 3 logically distinct possibilities:
(1) nature is infinite and fundamentally nondigital;
(2) nature is infinite and digital;
(3) nature is finite and digital.
Do the 3 preceding possibilities each require M-theory?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory
According to Wikipedia, the Leech lattice has a density of (pi^12)/(12 factorial).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leech_lattice
Can the fine-structure constant be calculated in terms of the Leech lattice?
According to Wolfram Alpha:
(pi^12)/(12 factorial) = .0019295743094039 approx.
(193/51) * .0019295743094039/(fine structure constant) = 1.00065256... approx.
Note that 51 = 3 * 17. The primes 2, 3, 13, 17, 41, 59, 167, 193, 227, and 251 occur as prime factors in Breakstones Table 3.
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/930235/files/0602118.pdf Empirical Relationships among Lepton and Quark Masses by A. Breakstone, 2006
The primes 3 and 17 occur among the prime factors of the monster group.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_group
Is Lestones calculation of the fine-structure constant empirically valid?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant
Can calculating the fine-structure constant in two distinct ways indicate a method for finding an important duality theorem in string theory?
Consider the following problem:
Find Model1 generated by 8 copies of the Leech lattice. Find Model2 generated by 3 copies of SO(64). Find an isomorphism from Model1 onto Model2 which is interesting in terms of Lie group theory.
Can the preceding problem (or a similar problem) lead to an isomorphism between vibrating superstrings and fuzzy energy tensors?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 09-27-2012 06:04 PM
David Brown is online now Click Here to See the Profile for David Brown Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
David Brown


Registered: May 2009
Posts: 177

What is the meaning of Gilson's estimate for the fine-structure constant?

Gilsons estimate for the fine-structure constant uses the cosine and tangent functions and the numerical constants pi, 137, and 29.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant
Is Gilsons estimate somehow related to the Fibonacci series?
Note that log(29)/log((1 + sqrt(5))/2) = 6.997533424224137... approx.
The number (1 + sqrt(5))/2 plays an essential role in the Fibonacci series.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_series
The vast majority of numerical estimates have no particular meaning. A few numerical estimates have primary meanings, secondary meanings, or tertiary meaning. By secondary and tertiary, I mean that secondary meanings can sometimes be derived from primary meanings, and tertiary meanings can sometimes be derived from secondary meanings. Does Gilsons estimate have a primary meaning or, at least, a secondary meaning?
Consider the following facts (A), (B), and (C):
(A) 71 is the largest prime divisor of the order of monster group.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_group
(B) 72 = 8 * 9.
(C) 73 satisfies 137 = 64 + 73.
According to Wolfram Alpha:
71 * (fine structure constant) - .518112032 = 4.558 * 10^-10 approx.
continued fraction for .518112032 = [0; 1, 1, 13, 3, 3, 3, 17, 1, 1, 1, 5, 13, 1]
expand the continued fraction [0; 1, 1, 13] (answer = 14/27)
expand the continued fraction [0; 1, 1, 13, 3] (answer = 43/83)
137/ exp(90.0/137) = 71.026 approx
137/ exp(19/29) = 71.151294 approx.
(137 / exp(5/8)) - (73 + 1/3) = - .0025 approx.
((neutron mass)/(proton mass)) - (1/(72 * pi**2)) + 1/(352 * pi**4) - 1/(1230 * pi**6) = 1, approximately.
((neutron mass)/(proton mass)) - 1/(6 * 73 * (zeta(2)) = .99999
((neutron mass)/(proton mass)) - 1/(6 * 100 * zeta(3)) = .999992
How is the Holographic Principle related to Fouries series?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle
Does the success of the Fredkin-Wolfram program require the use of Lebesgues constants?
For the Lebesgue constants in the theory of Fourier series, we have estimates:
L0 = 1
L1 = 1/3 +(2 * sqrt(3))/2 = 1.435991124
L2 = 1.642188435 approx.
L3 = 1.778322861 approx.
L4 = 1.880080599 approx.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LebesgueConstants.html Lebesgue Constants from Wolfram MathWorld
BIG QUESTION:
Does L4 have significance in quantum field theory?
The current value of the multiplicative inverse of the fine structure constant is
137.035999074(44).
137/1.88 = 72.87234 approx.
137 - 72 * 1.88 = 1.64 approx. (roughly L2). I MAKE THE GUESS THAT THIS IS NOT A MEANINGLESS COINCIDENCE. THERE IS SOME STRING ESTIMATE THAT EXPLAINS IT. Perhaps this guess is wrong.
Many of my statements are wrong or meaningless, but at least part of my thinking is correct because of empirical evidence.
MY THINKING IS AS FOLLOWS: Consider 4 main thoughts:
(1) Milgrom is the Kepler of modern cosmology. (fact not opinion OVERWHELMING EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE)
Conjectures:
(2) There are 6 quarks because there are 6 pariah groups.
(3) Lestones heuristic string theory is correct.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics.gen-ph/0703151v6 Physics based calculation of the fine structure constant by J. P. Lestone
(4) Koides formula is essential for understanding the foundations of physics.
Most of the following is repetition from previous postings:
CKM CP-violating phase = .995 approx.
CAN THE 3 GAUGE COUPLING CONSTANTS BE EXPLAINED IN TERMS OF THE MONSTER GROUP?
In the particle theorists Standard Model, for the 3 gauge coupling constants, there are the approximate values:
U(1) gauge coupling: .357 (Note that 81/227 = .356828 and 227 occurs in Breakstones Table 3. Note that (6 * 19 + 2)/(17 * 19 + 2) = 116/325 = .356923 )
SU(2) gauge coupling: .652 (Note that (4 * 29 + 2)/(6 * 29 + 7) = (6 * 19 + 4)/ (10 * 19 - 9) = 118/181 = .65193370... approx.)
SU(3) gauge coupling: 1.221 (Note that 105/86 = 1.22093 = (3 * 29 + 19 - 1)/(3 * 29 -1).)
these 3 dimensionless constants are determined by applying theory to experimental measurements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0308144v2 Trying to Understand Standard Model parameters by C. D. Froggart & H. B. Nielsen, 2003
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0108195v6 The Standard Model in 2001 by J. L. Rosner
According to Wolfram Alpha,
1 + pi/16 + pi^2/400 = 1.22102355...
Is the preceding formula an approximation to a power series in pi that yields the SU(3) gauge coupling constant?
According to NKS Chapter 9, Wolframs mobile automaton operates below the Planck scale with a Wolframian updating parameter that gradually builds approximations to time, space, and energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science
If Wolfram is correct, then all the free parameters of the Standard Model should have precise representations in terms of Newtons gravitational constant, Plancks constant, the speed of light, and the Fredkin-Wolfram constant. If advocates of NKS Chapter 9 generate thousands of formulas that attempt to explain the free parameters of the Standard Model, then many of the formulas might be meaningless or misleading but valuable truths might emerge.
IF WOLFRAM IS CORRECT, THEN IT IS MANDATORY TO CORRECTLY CALCULATE ALL THE FREE PARAMETERS OF THE STANDARD MODEL.
Does the arithmetic mean of the 3 gauge coupling constants have some interesting physical interpretation in terms of superstring theory?
((1.221 + .652 + .357)/3)^(1/64) = .99537618...
Most physicists would dismiss the preceding estimate as a meaningless numerical fact. However, according to the Fuzzy Energy Tensor Conjecture, there might be a 64 by 64 M-theoretical formula that represents (1.221 + .652 + .357)/3 as a trace derived from 64 fuzzy energy tensors on the 11-dimensional mystery domain. (See the posting NKS-modified M-theory: vibrating superstrings or fuzzy energy tensors? at nks forum applied nks.) This particular arithmetic mean might somehow measure how the unified forces govern the multiverse. If this physical hypothesis is correct, then the (1/64)th root of the arithmetic mean of the 3 gauge coupling constants might be expandable in terms of a power series in some physically significant number.
If there are trace formulas and determinant formulas for all the physical constants in terms of the Fuzzy Energy Tensor Conjecture, then the formula
(pi * (5/8) * (3/8))^(1/64) = .99522856...
might derive from a determinant formula in which pi, 5/8, and 3/8 represent a unification of gravitation with (SU(8) matter) X (SU(8) antimatter) and with an embedding of SU(3) X SU(5) into SU(8).
According to Wolfram Alpha, we have the following 4 numerical facts: (** = ^)
((2 pi) **6)** (1/64) = 1.2340646674626...
(((mass up quark) ** 3) * ((mass down quark) **3) / ((mass electron)**6))**(1/64) = 1.19
(((mass strange quark) ** 3) * ((mass charm quark) **3) / ((mass muon)**6))**(1/64) = 1.12
(((mass top quark) ** 3) * ((mass bottom quark) **3) / ((mass tau)**6))**(1/64) = 1.2908
Do the 4 preceding formulas have explanations in terms of the hypothesis of the fuzzy energy tensor formulation of M-theory and the hypothesis of the 3 energy-density levels for strings? (See the posting Does D-brane M-theory with the Higgs boson resolve the vacuum catastrophe? at nks forum applied nks.)
In 2006, Carl A. Brannen, generalizing the work of Koide, predicted the neutrino values:
m1 = .0003834625 eV
m2 = .008913487 eV
m3 = .05071180 eV .
http://brannenworks.com/MASSES.pdf Koide Mass Formula for Neutrinos 2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino
According to Wolfram Alpha,
(5 pi)**(1/8) = 1.41096 ...
(((electron mass) * c**2)/(.0003834625 eV))**(1/64) = 1.38858795
(((muon mass) * c**2)/(.008913487 eV))**(1/64) = 1.43682542 (surprisingly close to L1???)
(((tau mass) * c**2)/(.05071180 eV))**(1/64) = 1.46136 .
If Brannens predictions are correct, then can M-theory explain the preceding 3 numerical estimates? Does M-theory need to explain Milgroms MOND, the space roar, Lestones estimates, and the Koide formula?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koide_formula
Is Gerald Rosen on the right track? In Rosens self-interaction mass formula, what explains the factor 41/10 ?
http://home.comcast.net/~gerald-rosen/Pub%20280.pdf Self-interaction mass formula that relates all leptons and quarks to the electron
Does the success of the Fredkin-Wolfram program require the ideas of Milgrom, Lestone, Koide, Brannen, Rosen, and Breakstone, as well as the M-theorists? Has Brown overlooked a few theorists whose ideas are needed? (Consider:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.0480.pdf A remark on the Koide relation for quarks by A. Kartavtsev, 2011.)
Note that if Brown is wrong, then Lestone, Koide, Brannen, Rosen, and Breakstone might still be correct. Milgrom is definitely correct, because the empirical evidence is in his favor.
Note that:
log(47)/log((1 + sqrt(5))/2) = 8.00094137593808... approx.
log(76)/log((1 + sqrt(5))/2) = 8.999640313805507... approx.
log(123)/log((1 + sqrt(5))/2) = 10.00013737147123272... approx.
Do the 3 preceding estimates have a physical meaning?
Note that 29, 47, 76, 123 are Lucas numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas_number
Note that 123 + 5 = 2 * 64. Might it be possible that 10 copies of some fractal model combined with 3 dimensions of space, 1 dimension of matter time, and 1 dimension of antimatter time are somehow approximately isomorphic to a model of a fuzzy energy tensor model with matter time combined with a model of a fuzzy energy tensor model with antimatter time?

Last edited by David Brown on 11-30-2012 at 01:31 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 11-19-2012 11:43 AM
David Brown is online now Click Here to See the Profile for David Brown Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
David Brown


Registered: May 2009
Posts: 177

196883, Koides formula, and monster group numerology

Can the number 196883 be connected with the Koide formula? Does the multiverse exist because 196883 = (59 12) * 59 * (59 + 12) ? What are the most important connections between the monster group and the Fibonacci numbers?
According to the mathematics professor Mark Ronan, the least number of dimensions in which the Monster group can act non-trivially is 196883.
http://homepages.math.uic.edu/~ronan/196883 196,883 dimensions and the Monster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Ronan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_group
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_number
The Koide formula is intriguing but controversial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koide_formula
Does the Koide function defined by (x, y, z) > (x + y + z)/(x^.5 + y^.5 + z^.5)^2 play an important role in the foundations of physics?
According to Wolfram Alpha:
(tau mass)/(muon mass) = 16.8183 approx.
(tau mass)/(muon mass) = 16.8183 - 3.925 * 10^-5 approx.
(muon mass)/(electron mass) = 206.7683 approx.
(muon mass)/(electron mass) = 206.7683 - 1.594 * 10^-5 approx.
(16.8183 * 206.7683)^.5 = 58.97025775668613... approx.
For the monster group numerologist, it is almost impossible to believe that the preceding estimate is merely a coincidence.
For x = 16.8183 and y = 206.7683 evaluate (71 * x + 47 * y)/((71 * x)^.5 + (47 * y)^.5)^2 . (Answer: .615631)
Consider 1/.615631 :
For x = 16.8183 and y = 206.7683 evaluate ((71 * x)^.5 + (47 * y)^.5)^2/(71 * x + 47 * y) . (Answer: 1.346073460734607...)
Does the number 1.346 have some meaning in terms of the Fibonacci numbers?
(3 + 5 + 8)/(3^.5 + 5^.5 + 8^.5)^2 = .34637...
(5 + 8 + 13)/(5^.5 + 8^.5 + 13^.5)^2 = .345884027...
(55 + 89 + 144)/((55^.5 + 89^.5 + 144^.5)^2) = .34601541...
For r = (1 + sqrt(5))/2 evaluate 2 * (1 + r) / ( 1 + r^.5 + (1 + r)^.5))^2 . (Answer: .346014...)
For x = 16.8183, y = 206.7683, z = 23.6 evaluate ((((59 + z) * x)^.5 + ((59 - z) * y)^.5)^2)/((59 + z) * x + (59 - z) * y) . (Answer: 1.73231) (Note that sqrt(3) = 1.7320508... )
For x = 16.8183, y = 206.7683, z = 50.08 evaluate ((((59 + z) * x)^.5 + ((59 - z) * y)^.5)^2)/((59 + z) * x + (59 - z) * y) . (Answer: 2 approx.)
16.8183 - (17 * (59/79)^0 + (2/19) * (59/71)^2 - 22 * (59/71)^24 + 44 * (59/71)^50) = .00003798... approx.
206.7683 - (207 * (59/79)^0 - (1/5) * (59/71)^2 - 8 * (59/71)^24 + 5 * (59/71)^50) = -.0000241562...
Are the two preceding estimates merely numerical accidents?
Consider the problem of estimating the fine-structure constant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant
137.035999074 - (137 * (59/79)^0 + (1/23) * (59/71)^2 + (1/2) * (59/71)^24 + 1 * (59/71)^50 + (9/2) * (59/71)^78 + 9 * (59/71)^108) = 2.8759 * 10^-9 approx.
1 = .5 + .5; 9/2 = 1 + 7/2; 9 = 9/2 + 9/2; next coefficient = 9 + 11/2
Is something going on here?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 11-25-2012 06:25 PM
David Brown is online now Click Here to See the Profile for David Brown Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
David Brown


Registered: May 2009
Posts: 177

String theory and Breakstones predictions of lepton and quark masses

If nature is finite and digital, then there has to be a mathematical model resulting from taking the Fredkin-Wolfram constant to infinity. Presumably, the finite nature hypothesis requires some string theoretical model that makes valid predictions for the free parameters of the Standard Model of particle physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
Frenkel, Lepowsky, and Meurman constructed the monster vertex algebra, which has been important in string theoretical research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Frenkel
Does the finite nature hypothesis require the Frenkel-Lepowsky-Meurman (FLM) model? According to Witten, the starting point of the FLM construction is that 24 free bosons are compactified via the Leech lattice. (Compare Breakstones formula (2) with Wittens formulas (4.14) and (4.15).)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0706.3359v1.pdf Three-Dimensional Gravity Revisited by Edward Witten, 2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leech_lattice
Can the FLM model be extended to incorporate the hypothesis that the 24 free bosons vibrate at three different energy-density levels: low, intermediate, and high? Could such an extended FLM model based on the pariah groups make successful empirical predictions?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pariah_group
Breakstone has predicted lepton and quark masses.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0602118v2.pdf Empirical Relationships among Lepton and Quark Masses by A. Breakstone, 2009 revision
CLAIM 1: Breakstones empirical predictions for lepton and quark masses have considerable value in terms of particle physics.
CLAIM 2: String theory is the only plausible way to justify Breakstones empirical work in terms of the foundations of physics.
CONJECTURE (A): There are 6 quarks because there are 6 pariah groups.
CONJECTURE (B): The famous Frenkel-Lepowsky-Meurman model is part of a structure that somehow combines this famous model with the 6 pariah groups. I call this undiscovered hypothetical model the FLM pariah model. I conjecture that the FLM pariah model supports 11 string operators, M(1), M(2), , M(11). The operators M(1), M(2), M(3) represent 3 distinct energy-density levels. The operators M(4), , M(11) represent various kinds of displacements in energy-density level. These 11 string operators are more-or-less equivalent to 11 matrices in SL(12, C). For k = 1, , 11, each matrix M(k) has 12 real eigenvalues. The string operators M(1), , M(9) can be used to correctly predict all of the mass ratios based upon the free parameters of the Standard Model of particle physics. The string operators M(10) and M(11) can be used to correctly predict the 3 gauge couplings and the 3 mixing angles in the Standard Model by examining the 6 real numbers given by
trace (M(j)) M(k)), for j = 10, 11 and k = 1, 2, 3.
CONJECTURE (C): There exist 9 operators that explain the quark and lepton mass ratios:
M(electron,zerobump), M(electron,+bump), M(electron,-bump),
M(muon,zerobump), M(muon,+bump), M(muon,-bump),
M(tau,zerobump), M(tau,+bump), M(tau,-bump); these 9 operators have unknown definitions. I conjecture that the zerobump operators are string theoretically defined in terms of the monster group, the electron bump operators are defined in terms of the 1st and 2nd Janko groups, the muon bump operators are defined in terms of the Rudvalis group and the ONan group, and the tau bump operators are defined in terms of the Lyons group and the 4th Janko group.
THIRD GENERATION: Breakstones (35a) through (35c) (See pages 9 and 10 of Breakstones paper.)
(35a): (top quark mass)/(electron mass) =
exp(trace(log( (M(tau,zerobump) ^3) M(tau, +bump))))
(35b): (bottom quark mass)/(electron mass) =
exp(trace(log( (M(tau,zerobump) ^2) M(tau,+bump) M(tau,-bump))))
(35c): (tau neutrino mass)/(electron mass) =
exp(trace(log( M(tau,zerobump) M(tau,-bump))))
SECOND GENERATION: Breakstones (35d) through (35f)
(35d): (charm quark mass)/(electron mass) =
exp(trace(log( (M(muon,zerobump) ^3) M(muon, +bump))))
(35e): (strange quark mass)/(electron mass) =
exp(trace(log( (M(muon,zerobump) ^2) M(muon,+bump) M(muon,-bump))))
(35f): (muon neutrino mass)/(electron mass) =
exp(trace(log( M(muon,zerobump) M(muon,-bump))))
FIRST GENERATION: Breakstones (35g) through (35i)
(35g): (up quark mass)/(electron mass) =
exp(trace(log( (M(electron,zerobump) ^3) M(electron, +bump))))
(35h): (down quark mass)/(electron mass) =
exp(trace(log( (M(electron,zerobump) ^2) M(electron,+bump) M(electron,-bump))))
(35i): (electron neutrino mass)/(electron mass) =
exp(trace(log( M(electron,zerobump) M(electron,-bump))))
Does the preceding have any merit?

Last edited by David Brown on 12-15-2012 at 12:05 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 11-29-2012 03:12 PM
David Brown is online now Click Here to See the Profile for David Brown Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
David Brown


Registered: May 2009
Posts: 177

Motls criticism of the Koide formula

According to Motl, The charged lepton masses are very messy and complex functions of some parameters that are more fundamental.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/01/c...la-be-real.html Could Koides formula be real? by L. Motl, 2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koide_formula
Is Motl correct about the Koide formula? A careful reading of Cricks What Mad Pursuit would probably indicate that Motl is correct. Three numbers and a mathematical coincidence are not enough to make a conclusion. According to Crick, the only useful constraints are contained in the experimental evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_M...tific_Discovery Cricks What Mad Pursuit
What does M-theory need to explain? I suggest that dark matter, dark energy, the space roar, and the free parameters of the Standard Model are the most important things that M-theory should explain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_roar
I speculate that the main task of string theory is to geometrize Feynman diagrams in such a way as to make valid empirical predictions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_diagram
If Fredkin and Wolfram are wrong about the finite nature hypothesis, then I suggest that the string landscape is empirically valid and that string theorys best efforts shall be constrained by the anthropic principle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory_landscape
If I admit that all of my numerological efforts have been a foolish waste of time, then what?
I maintain two fundamental ideas:
MILGROM DENIAL HYPOTHESIS: The main problem with string theory is that string theorists fail to realize that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology.
WOLFRAMS COSMOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE: The maximum physical wavelength is the Planck length times the Fredkin-Wolfram constant.
Is it possible that Milgroms non-relativistic MOND is wrong? No, because there is overwhelming physical evidence in its favor.
http://astroweb.case.edu/ssm/mond/ The MOND pages by McGaugh
I speculate that there are 2 basic possibilities:
(1) Nature is infinite with a fundamental structure that is geometrically smooth. In this case, cold dark matter particles resolve the dark matter problem, but something extremely weird makes it appear that there is a significant problem with Newton-Einstein gravitational theory. The string landscape in some form should be the fundamental model of nature.
(2) Nature is finite and digital with an updating parameter governed by Wolframs mobile automaton. In this case, Milgroms non-relativistic MOND is correct, and the apace roar cannot be explained without Wolframs automaton.
Are the 2 previous speculations wrong? Perhaps so.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.3942v1.pdf Dark Matter: A Brief Review by Annika H. G Peter, 2012
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.5122v1.pdf MD or DM? Modified dynamics at low accelerations versus dark matter, 2010
http://www.ucm.es/info/electron/pub...1-Finaltext.pdf Parametric invariance and the Pioneer anomaly by A. Fernndez-Raada and A. Tiemblo, 2011
My analysis of the Motl versus Koide debate is this: The crux of the issue is whether sqrt(mass) is physically meaningful. My guess is that Koide is correct and Motl is wrong.
CONJECTURE: The multiverse converts mass-energy into spatial volume at a constant rate. This conversion is what causes dark energy.

Last edited by David Brown on 12-16-2012 at 10:00 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 12-04-2012 02:32 PM
David Brown is online now Click Here to See the Profile for David Brown Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
David Brown


Registered: May 2009
Posts: 177

Does string snapping explain dark energy?

Why have string theorists so far failed to explain dark energy? One of my basic ideas is:
MILGROM DENIAL HYPOTHESIS: The main problem with string theory is that string theorists fail to realize that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology.
My two main testable predictions are the Fernndez-Raada-Milgrom effect and the space roar profile. Does string snapping give an explanation for both of these predictions?
According to Patricia Schwarz, In string theory, as in guitar playing, the string must be stretched under tension in order to become excited.
http://www.superstringtheory.com/basics/basic4.html What is string theory by Patricia Schwarz
What happens if a superstring snaps with respect to the string tension alpha prime?
STRING SNAPPING CONJECTURE: There is a nonzero probability that a superstring can snap with respect to the string tension alpha prime. If the string snapping occurs in a alternate universe then the string snapping causes ephemeris time to be different from atomic time. If the multiverse is infinite then the explanation of dark matter consists of neutralinos together with the fact that ephemeris time is different from atomic time. If the string snapping occurs in our observable universe then the physical evidence for the string snapping is dark energy. The multiverse converts mass-energy into spatial volume at a constant rate. This conversion is what causes dark energy, which is the physical manifestation of string snapping in our observable universe. The process of string snapping is irreversible during the expansion phase of the multiverse. At the big stop to the big bang, all the string snapping gets reversed in an instantaneous quantum collapse. Our universe starts out with a full load of ordinary matter, and the multiverse gradually converts real mass energy into virtual mass energy via string snapping. When the process of string snapping has gone on too long, each observable universe in the multiverse undergoes instantaneous quantum collapse. The big bang process recurs approximately every 81. 6 billion years ( 1.7 billion years).
What is the evidence for the String Snapping Conjecture? The answer is the space roar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_roar
MILGROM IS THE KEPLER OF CONTEMPORARY COSMOLOGY.
http://astroweb.case.edu/ssm/mond/ The MOND pages by Stacy McGaugh
Ephemeris time is significantly different from atomic time. According to Fernndez-Raada and Tiemblo, not all of the dynamical clock-times are necessarily equivalent and the observational fingerprint of this nonequivalence has, curiously, the same form as that of the Pioneer anomaly.
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi....1139/p2012-086 Parametric Invariance and the Pioneer Anomaly Canadian Journal of Physics, 2012
http://www.ucm.es/info/electron/pub...1-Finaltext.pdf Parametric invariance and the Pioneer anomaly by A. Fernndez-Raada and A. Tiemblo, 2011
Consider the following conjecture: Based upon the ideas of Fernndez-Raada and Tiemblo, the -1/2 in the standard form of Einsteins field equations should be replaced by -1/2 + F(fundamental tensor, energy tensor, parameters from quantum gravity), where F is a positive function that is very small with respect to 1/2.
*****
My guess on string theory is there are two basic alternatives:
ALTERNATIVE 1: The multiverse is infinite with a fundamental structure that is geometrically smooth. In this case, dark matter particles exist and all, or most, of the free parameters of the Standard Model of particle physics are environmental circumstances of our particular big bang. Some version of eternal cosmological inflation should be empirically valid with the proviso that each big bang undergoes a big stop. The string landscape is an empirical fact.
ALTERNATIVE 2: The multiverse is finite and digital with a fundamental structure that runs according to the updating parameter from Wolframs mobile automaton. In this case, dark matter particles do not exist. Dark matter is fully explained by Milgroms MOND according to the Fernndez-Raada-Milgrom effect. All of the free parameters of the Standard Model of particle physics have precise explanations stemming from Wolframs automaton. Superstrings and quantum fields are merely approximations derived from Wolframs automaton.
Why might the two preceding alternatives be plausible? According to Witten, superstring theory (or M-theory) has a mathematical form that demands the existence of gravity.
http://www.sns.ias.edu/~witten/ Edward Witten School of Natural Sciences Institute for Advanced Study
There are many plausible mathematical models for string theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory_landscape
Those who deny the existence of the string landscape need to introduce new principles into physics in order to restrict, or altogether eliminate, the string landscape. The finite nature hypothesis, or some other drastic physical hypothesis, might be needed to eliminate the string landscape. NKS Chapter 9 explains how Fredkins Finite Nature Hypothesis might actually occur in terms of physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science
*****
What is the motivation for introducing the concept of string snapping? String theorists seem unable to explain the empirical evidence that the cosmological constant is nonzero. The observable universe seems to expanding faster than the string theorists of the 1980s believed. If some string process can convert energy into spatial volume, then sqrt(mass) has a physical meaning and the unity of time-space-energy has a physical manifestation. If a string paradoxically exceeds its natural string tension then there might be a gravitational analogue of Cherenkov radiation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation
The gravitational analogue of Cherenkov radiation might be manifested as excess gravitational redshift explaining Milgroms MOND and dark matter. String snapping in an observable universe might produce dark energy in that observable universe while contributing to excess gravitational redshift everywhere throughout the multiverse.
What might be the true explanation for dark energy? Are MOND and the space roar really the keys to understanding the foundations of physics? Is superstring theory really the only game in town? According to Edward Witten, quoted on page 93 of Superstrings: A Theory of Everything, In the case of a violin string, the different harmonics correspond to different sounds. In the case of a superstring, the different harmonics correspond to different elementary particles.
http://books.google.com/books?isbn=052143775X Superstrings: A Theory of Everything? by P. C. W. Davies and Julian Russell Brown, 1992
Physicists are waiting for string theorists to answer the following question: In the case of a superstring, what corresponds to dark energy?

Last edited by David Brown on 12-14-2012 at 02:34 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 12-06-2012 04:56 AM
David Brown is online now Click Here to See the Profile for David Brown Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
David Brown


Registered: May 2009
Posts: 177

Do string theorists need the ideas of Milgrom and Koide?

What are the meanings of Milgroms gravitational acceleration law and the Koide formula?
Is the Raada-Milgrom effect empirically valid? Does the Koide formula lead to valid empirical predictions for the free parameters of the Standard Model of particle physics? Is Lestones heuristic string theory closely related to Milgroms gravitational acceleration law and to the Koide formula?
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics.gen-ph/0703151v6 Physics based calculation of the fine structure constant by J. P. Lestone
Consider 2 hypotheses:
MILGROM DENIAL HYPOTHESIS: The main problem with string theory is that string theorists fail to realize that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology.
KOIDE DENIAL HYPOTHESIS: String theorists are unable to explain dark energy because they fail to realize that the Koide formula is essential for understanding the foundations of physics.
Why might the 2 preceding hypotheses be correct? Study of the work of McGaugh and Kroupa might strongly suggest that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology.
http://astroweb.case.edu/ssm/mond/ The MOND pages by Stacy McGaugh
http://www.astro.uni-bonn.de/~pavel..._cosmology.html Pavel Kroupa: Dark Matter, Cosmology and Progress website
If sqrt(mass) is not a physically meaningful concept, then the Koide formula is perhaps a meaningless numerical coincidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koide_formula
Does a nonzero cosmological constant suggest that sqrt(mass) might have a profound physical significance?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
The nonzero cosmological constant might suggest that the universe is losing gravitational energy and gaining more spatial volume than astrophysicists of the 1980s suspected. During a Planck time interval, is it possible that the multiverse converts real-mass energy into spatial volume together with virtual mass-energy? Is it possible for a superstring to snap, and, if so, what would that mean in terms of physical evidence? If a violin string is in frictional contact with a violin bow and then the string snaps, the string loses a source of frictional heat. Does a snapped superstring become quantum vacuum contributing to gravitational expansion? What are the two main pieces of evidence that alternate universes exist? Could the answer to the previous question be dark matter and dark energy? Could non-relativistic string theory make interesting predictions? Consider the following 4 hypotheses of center-of-mass:
(1) Center of mass is never a dimensionless point.
(2) A massive bosons center of mass is a 1-sphere.
(3) A leptons center of mass is a 2-sphere.
(4) A baryons center of mass is a 3-sphere.
Would the 4 preceding hypotheses, if true, severely restrict superstring vibration?
Consider hypotheses (A) through (F):
(A) Direct or indirect measurement means that virtual mass-energy is localized to some particular observable universe in the multiverse.
(B) Virtual mass-energy that is neither directly nor indirectly measured remains spread among all of the alternate universes in the multiverse.
(C) The alternate universes undergo a repeating cycle of big bangs and big stops according to the Wolframian updating parameter in Wolframs mobile automaton.
(D) Superstrings are undetectable by both direct and indirect measurement. An unsnapped superstring remains spread across all the alternate universes in the multiverse. A snapped superstring appears as part of the virtual mass-energy of the quantum vacuum.
(E) Dark energy is indirect evidence for snapping of superstrings in a particular observable universe as superstring energy is converted to spatial volume at a constant rate over a Planck time interval. Dark matter is indirect evidence for snapping of superstrings throughout the multiverse as superstring snapping causes virtual gravitational waves of virtual superstring energy.
(F) The multiverse recycles in approximately 81.6 billion years ( 1.7 billion years). The multiverse converts real energy into spatial volume with virtual energy during the expansion phase. During each big stop to a big stop to a big bang, the multiverse converts all of the spatial volume with virtual energy into the real energy of a big bang. The process is part of the finite state machine that is roughly described in NKS Chapter 9.
Do the preceding hypotheses deserve a grade of F? The alleged Raada-Milgrom effect and the space roar profile prediction should decide the issue.
Does the Koide formula lead to a better understanding of the Standard Model? Should the goal be to predict the most outcomes with the fewest free parameters? According to Lawrence J. Hall, It may be that predictive scheme for fermionic masses, depending on far fewer than the 13 flavor couplings of the Standard Model, is a prerequisite for the development of a fundamental theory of fermionic masses. Indeed such a predictive scheme for fermionic masses would start looking very much like a fundamental theory if it involved few enough parameters.
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wr...c/ssi92-001.pdf Predicting Quark and Neutrino Masses and Mixings by Lawrence J. Hall, 1993
Are all the fundamental masses in the universe related to the electron mass by formulas from string theory?
Witten (page 54, Table 2 of Three-Dimensional Gravity Revisited) gives the dimensions of the first 12 monster representations. The table begins with the following four numbers: 1, 196883, 2129687, and 842609326.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0706.3359v1.pdf Three-Dimensional Gravity Revisited by Edward Witten, 2007
Note the following estimate (according to Wolfram Alpha):
For w = 1, x = 196883/2, y = 21296876/4, z = 842609326./8 evaluate (w + x + y + z)/(w^.5 + x^.5 + y^.5 + z^.5)^2 (Result: .667065)

Last edited by David Brown on 12-17-2012 at 02:45 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 12-15-2012 07:11 PM
David Brown is online now Click Here to See the Profile for David Brown Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
David Brown


Registered: May 2009
Posts: 177

Logical simplicity and the finite nature hypothesis

t Hooft conjectures that Beyond Superstring Theory, there is something really simple it is conceptually simple, but mathematically hard
http://www.ccsem.infn.it/issp2012/d...superstring.pdf Beyond Relativistic Quantum String Theory or Discreteness and Determinism in Superstrings by Gerard t Hooft, Erice, June 27 and July 1, 2012
According to t Hooft, a deterministic cellular automaton in one space- and one time dimension can be mapped onto a bosonic quantum field theory on a 1+1 dimensional lattice. We now also show that a cellular automaton in 1+1 dimensions that processes only ones and zeros, can be mapped into a fermionic field theory in a similar way.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.3612v2.pdf Discreteness and Determinism in Superstrings by t Hooft, 2012
In the preceding paper, t Hooft has A New Kind of Science as reference #7. In my opinion, a cellular automaton below the Planck scale uses Fredkin time, Fredkin distance, and Fredkin digit transition so that care needs to be used when discussing energy and quantum states below the Planck scale. I think that, so far, t Hooft has ignored 3 important questions:
Is Milgrom the Kepler of contemporary cosmology? Is sqrt(mass) = area? Is the space roar essential for understanding the foundations of physics?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_roar
Could an empirically valid superstring simulation use the following 5 rules?
(1) Chaos simulation rule that uses pi and exp(2 * pi) to simulate two quasi-independent dimensions;
(2) Lattice simulation rule that uses rule (1) to simulate, in 11 dimensions, a bosonic lattice and a fermionic lattice;
(3) Superstring simulation rule that uses rules (1) and (2) to create approximations to supersymmetry, gauge/gravity duality, and gravity;
(4) Standard model simulation rule that implements an approximation to quantum field theory from rules (1), (2), and (3);
(5) Wolframian updating parameter rule that uses rules (1) through (4) to simulate a recurring big bang cycle based upon Wolframs mobile automaton.
Is Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) extremely important for cellular automata studies in string theory? According to Jacob Bekenstein, The modified newtonian dynamics (MOND) paradigm of Milgrom can boast a number of successful predictions regarding galactic dynamics; these are made without the assumption that dark matter plays a significant role. MOND requires gravitation to depart from Newtonian theory in the extragalactic regime where dynamical accelerations are small.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0403694v6.pdf Relativistic gravitation theory for the MOND paradigm by Jacob D. Bekenstein, 2005

Last edited by David Brown on 01-09-2013 at 11:06 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 12-18-2012 12:10 PM
David Brown is online now Click Here to See the Profile for David Brown Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
David Brown


Registered: May 2009
Posts: 177

t Hoofts superstring model, combined supersymmetry, and the GZK paradox

According to t Hooft, We claim that our observations add a new twist to discussions concerning the interpretation of quantum mechanics, which we call the cellular automaton (CA) interpretation."
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.3612v2.pdf Discreteness and Determinism in Superstrings by t Hooft, 2012
According to Wikipedia, In a theory with unbroken supersymmetry, for every type of boson there exists a corresponding type of fermion with the same mass and internal quantum numbers (other than spin), and vice-versa. There is no direct evidence for the existence of supersymmetry. It is motivated by possible solutions to several theoretical problems. Since the superpartners of the Standard Model particles have not been observed, supersymmetry must be a broken symmetry if it is a true symmetry of nature. This would allow the superparticles to be heavier than the corresponding Standard Model particles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersymmetry
Is supersymmetry (SUSY) relevant to the explanation of the GZK paradox?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greise...inKuzmin_limit
According to Wikipedia, The Lagrangian for Split Supersymmetry is constrained from the existence of high energy supersymmetry. There are five couplings in Split Supersymmetry: the Higgs quartic coupling and four Yukawa couplings between the Higgsinos, Higgs and gauginos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_supersymmetry
If there is only an approximate Lagragian at the Planck scale, and there is discreteness and determinism in superstrings, then what might occur in nature?
According to Professor Motl, my idea about paradigm-breaking photons is wrong there are no paradigm-breaking photons that explain the GZK paradox.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubo_Motl
I now believe Prof. Motl is correct about the alleged paradigm-breaking photons. But what does resolve the GZK paradox a new particle perhaps? Is there a new particle related to a revolution in the foundations of physics? Is t Hoofts theory of superstring discreteness and determinism important for understanding the foundations of physics?
In reply to a question about the value of t Hoofts work on superstring determinism, Prof. Motl gave this response in a Dec. 19, 2012, e-mail: Gerard 't Hooft has done great things but is deeply confused not just about string theory but also foundations of quantum mechanic. My guess is that Prof. Motl is completely wrong about t Hoofts work on string theory. Does t Hoofts work suggest a resolution to the GZK paradox? If, at the Planck scale, the smooth Lagrangian is replaced by a lattice superstring approximation, then could there be a combined SUSY?
COMBINED SUSY CONJECTURE: The fundamental theory of nature consists of discretness and determinism in superstrings. There is a combined supersymmetry with 2 and only 2 superparticles. The graviton is the combined superpartner of all the fermions, i.e., the unified fermion of SU(5) physics. The combined sfermion is the superpartner of all the bosons, i.e., the unified boson of SU(5) physics. The combined sfermion has spin 1/2, travels at the speed of light, and is the explanation for the GZK paradox. SU(8) physics represents the big bang singularity. SU(5) physics represents the big stop to the big bang.
Are gravitons completely stable? Could the explanation of dark energy consist of the decay of gravitons into combined sfermions? Could the explanation of dark energy consist of the escape of gravitons into alternate universes? Could the explanation of dark matter consist of the arrival of gravitons from alternate universes?

Last edited by David Brown on 12-20-2012 at 08:53 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 12-19-2012 08:40 AM
David Brown is online now Click Here to See the Profile for David Brown Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
David Brown


Registered: May 2009
Posts: 177

Is dark energy the conversion of energy into spatial volume at a constant rate?

How can spacetime be completely unified with mass-energy? Is a big stop to the big bang impossible without the finite nature hypothesis?
According to Goffinet, One of the main drawbacks of grand unification theories is the introduction of new gauge bosons which, in general, break up the lepton and baryon numbers and therefore allow the proton to decay. The current measurement settles firm constraints and has ruled out many of them including the original SU(5). Another drawback, aesthetic this time, is related to the breaking of the grand unification group. Usually this breaking requires several Higgs representations which imply a rather complex scalar sector with many physical scalar particles.
http://cp3.irmp.ucl.ac.be/upload/th...hd/goffinet.pdf A bottom-up approach to fermion masses, 2008 doctoral thesis by Franois Goffinet
If nature is finite and digital, then could such a natural property solve many problems connected with the grand unification group? Is Milgrom the Kepler of contemporary cosmology? Does the Koide formula suggest that sqrt(mass) = area? Have string theorists underestimated both Milgrom and Koide and thereby missed several likely developments in string theory? Have the imaginations of string theorists given them an abundance of geometry but a deficiency of prediction? Is mathematics the physics of the imagination? Is physics the mathematics of nature? Do scientists and artists do two basic things: create imaginative models and discover natural possibilities? Is supersymmetry one of the keys to natural possibilities? Is string theory the imaginative model that explains the multiverse?
The Physics Levels Conjecture: There are 4 fundamental levels of physics:
LEVEL 1. Newtonian mechanics and classical electromagnetic field theory;
LEVEL 2. Quantum field theory and general relativity theory;
LEVEL 3. Geometric string theory;
LEVEL 4. Lattice string theory with the finite nature hypothesis.
Is it possible to refute geometric string theory? No, because the string landscape and contrived brane interactions can provide models for any plausible, or implausible, physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory_landscape
What are the 3 main predictions of M-theory? The answer might be gravity, gauge/gravity duality, and supersymmetry.
http://www.sns.ias.edu/~witten/papers
According to Witten, supersymmetry is a new symmetry structure of elementary particles in which quantum variables are incorporated in the structure of space-time. The new symmetry prevents the particle interactions that would make the Higgs particle mass too big but, again, predicts a host of additional new particles that might be discovered at the LHC, and perhaps at the Tevatron.
http://www.sns.ias.edu/~witten/papers/Symmetry.pdf When symmetry breaks down by Edward Witten, 2004
Is supersymmetry considerably different in a finite multiverse as opposed to an infinite multiverse? Consider three beliefs about the foundations of physics:
(A) The equivalence principle is 100% empirically valid.
(B) The universe is infinite.
(C) Supersymmetry predicts many new particles.
My guess is that the work of Milgrom, McGaugh, and Kroupa refutes belief (A).
http://astroweb.case.edu/ssm/mond/ The MOND pages by Stacy McGaugh
http://www.astro.uni-bonn.de/~pavel..._cosmology.html Pavel Kroupa: Dark Matter, Cosmology and Progress website
I am also guessing that the space roar refutes belief (B) and suggests that the multiverse recycles in approximately 81.6 billion years ( 1.7 billion years).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_roar
In connection with belief (C), my guess is that supersymmetry with the finite nature hypothesis might predict one and only one new particle: a combined sfermion with spin that travels at the speed of light. Are beliefs (A), (B), and (C) highly plausible? Yes, and perhaps all three of them are correct. What are the most important questions and observations concerning the monster group?
The set {2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 41, 47, 59, 71} consists of those distinct primes that divide the order of the monster group.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_group
The set {2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 31, 41, 47} consists of those distinct primes that divide the order of the baby monster group. According to Wikipedia, The double cover of the Baby Monster is the centralizer of an element of order 2 in the Monster group.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Monster_group
For the six pariah groups, the sets of distinct primes that divide the order of the group are:
{2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 19} for Janko group J1;
{2, 3, 5, 17, 19} for Janko group J3:
{2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 23, 29, 31, 37, 43} for Janko group J4;
{2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 31, 37, 67} for the Lyons group Ly;
{2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 19, 31} for the O'Nan group O'N;
{2, 3, 5, 7, 13, 29} for the Rudvalis group Ru.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pariah_group
The prime numbers between 1 and 72 are: 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number
Note that for the twenty prime numbers between 1 and 72, the only two primes that are missing from the combined set of primes for the monster group and the 6 pariah groups are the primes 53 and 61. Does the preceding fact have an interesting explanation in terms of the foundations of physics? Is the fact that 37, 43, and 67 do not divide the order of the monster group somehow related to physics? Does the fact that 29, 59, and 71 divide the order of the monster group but not the order of the baby monster groups have an interesting explanation in terms of the foundations of physics? Does antimatter exist because the monster group and the baby monster group exist?
Is the numerical fact that 1^2 + 2^2 + 3^2 + + 24^2 = 70^2 profoundly important for the foundations of physics?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leech_lattice
Are there 11 basic string operators that determine 3 energy-density waves, 4 linear momentum waves, and 4 angular momentum waves on the Leech lattice?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 12-22-2012 11:32 PM
David Brown is online now Click Here to See the Profile for David Brown Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
David Brown


Registered: May 2009
Posts: 177

What is the physical meaning of AdS = CFT?

According to Maldacena, The gauge/gravity duality is an equality between two theories: On one side we have a quantum field theory in d spacetime dimensions. On the other side we have a gravity theory on a d+1 dimensional spacetime that has an asymptotic boundary which is d dimensional. It is also sometimes called AdS/CFT, because the simplest examples involve anti-de-Sitter space and conformal field theories. It is often called gauge-string duality. This is because the gravity theories are string theories and the quantum field theories are gauge theories. It is also referred to as holography because one is describing a d+1 dimensional gravity theory in terms of a lower dimensional system, in a way which is reminiscent of an optical hologram which stores a three dimensional image on a two dimensional plate. It is called a conjecture, but by now there is a lot of evidence that it is correct. In addition, there are some derivations based on physical arguments.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.6073v1.pdf The gauge/gravity duality by Juan Maldacena, 2011
According to Horowitz and Polchinski, The AdS/CFT system is entirely embedded in the framework of quantum mechanics. On the gauge theory side we have an explicit Hamiltonian and states we can think of as gauge invariant functionals of the fields. Thus the gravitational theory on the other side is quantum mechanical as well. In particular the metric fluctuates freely except at the AdS boundary. One is not restricted to perturbations about a particular background.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0602037.pdf Gauge/gravity duality (p. 10) by Gary T. Horowitz and Joseph Polchinski, 2006
According to Polchinski, Maldacenas equation AdS = CFT contains all the central concepts of fundamental physics: Maxwells equations to start with, and their non-Abelian extension, plus the Dirac and Klein-Gordon equations, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory and general relativity. Moreover, in addition to these known principles of nature, it contains several more that theorists have found appealing: supersymmetry, string theory, and extra dimensions, and it ties all of these together in an irreducible way.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1010.6134v1.pdf Introduction to Gauge/Gravity Duality by Joseph Polchinski, 2010
What is the geometry of the multiverse? Is the problem of geometrizing Feynman diagrams closely related to the question of how nature constrains superstring vibrations? Does the Leech lattice constrain superstring vibrations?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leech_lattice
Does superstring snapping provide the flow of time in a holographic multiverse? Is the unobserved portion of the multiverse, from the QFT viewpoint, similar to a hologram with an infinite number of dimensions? Is the multiverse similar to a quantum lattice of quantum lattices?
Here are 3 of my main ideas:
MILGROM DENIAL HYPOTHESIS: The main problem with string theory is that string theorists fail to realize that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology.
WOLFRAMS COSMOLOGICAL HYPOTHESIS: The maximum physical wavelength is the Planck length times the Fredkin-Wolfram constant.
PHYSICS LEVELS HYPOTHESIS: There are 4 fundamental levels of physics:
LEVEL 1. Newtonian mechanics and classical electromagnetic field theory;
LEVEL 2. Quantum field theory and general relativity theory;
LEVEL 3. Geometric string theory;
LEVEL 4. Lattice string theory with the finite nature hypothesis.
What might the preceding hypotheses imply? Consider:
The 72-ball hypothesis: There is an approximate quantum field theory in 71 spacetime dimensions linked to the monster group and the six pariah groups. The 71 dimensions are needed to accommodate all the group symmetries from the 26 sporadic groups. There is an approximate gravitational theory in 72 spacetime dimensions. The smoothing of Wolframs mobile automaton is somewhat similar to a huge 72-ball with a vast number of tiny alternate universes on its boundary, which is approximately a 71-sphere with many tiny bubbles representing alternate universes. The 72-ball undergoes a perpetual cycle of cooling and reheating of the boundary. The passage of time occurs because of superstring snapping. A superstring is either shared between the boundary and the interior or else localized to one particular alternate universe. If a shared superstring snaps then it cools off and becomes localized to one particular alternate universe. This superstring snapping process creates an excess of quantum vacuum. Superstring snapping occurs at a constant rate and explains the nonzero cosmological constant, which might also be called D-brane noise. The superstring snapping process also explains the fact that the dark-matter-compensation-constant is nonzero. A snapped string localized to one particular alternate universe reinforces the gravitational signal found in all the alternate universes. Thus string snapping cause D-brane reinforcement of the gravitational signal, i.e., a uniform excess of gravitational redshift interpreted as dark matter. There are 2 fundamental speeds in the multiverse: c, the speed of light in a vacuum found in each alternate universe, and C, the speed of light in the interior of the multiverse. All of the alternate universes are located on the boundary of the 72-ball geometry of the multiverse. The interior of the 72-ball is an ultra-hot ultra-vacuum with a speed C which is enormously greater than the speed c. Virtual mass-energy is shared between the boundary and the interior of the 72-ball. Real mass-energy is localized to some particular alternate universe on the boundary of the 72-ball. If nature were not finite, then the speed C would be infinite and the interior of the 72-ball would have zero energy-density. The interior of the 72-ball contracts as the synchronized big bangs of the alternate universes expand. When the big bangs reach their maximum expansion in about 81.6 billion years ( 1.7 billion years) then the synchronized big stops to the big bangs occur in precisely one Planck time interval. During the synchronized big bang singularities, the interior of the 72-ball recovers all of the virtual energy that it has lost during the expansion phase, and the interior of the 72-ball expands to its maximum diameter in precisely one Planck time interval. The M-theoretical fundamental domain is 11-dimensional because there are 11 basic superstring waves that periodically vibrate on a lattice consisting of (Leech lattice) <DIRECT SUM> (Leech lattice) <DIRECT SUM> (Leech lattice). D-brane gravitation controls the expansions and contractions of the boundary and interior of the 72-ball. Unified D-brane electromagnetism with 24 D-brane charges explains the Standard Model of particle physics. There are 3 generations of particles because there are 3 distinct energy-density levels in the fundamental lattice structure of the multiverse. The Standard Model exists because there are 26 sporadic groups.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sporadic_group
Is the 72-ball hypothesis completely wrong? Perhaps so, but why have string theorists failed to explain dark energy? What is the physical meaning of AdS = CFT in terms of dark matter and dark energy?

Last edited by David Brown on 01-01-2013 at 05:32 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 01-01-2013 04:39 PM
David Brown is online now Click Here to See the Profile for David Brown Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
David Brown


Registered: May 2009
Posts: 177

Comments on "Does Superstring Snapping Explain Dark Matter and Dark Energy?"

I posted Does Superstring Snapping Explain Dark Matter and Dark Energy at vixra.org and I want to make 3 comments on the text.
BEGIN COMMENT 1
Why is the fundamental domain of M-theory 11-dimensional? My guess is as follows:
One might think of Einsteins fundamental tensor as a 4X4 symmetric matrix:
@ @ @ @ Here the #s represent entries that have an identical partner symmetric to
# @ @ @ the diagonal. Einsteins general relativity theory is 10-dimensional and
# # @ @ there needs to be one more dimension representing antimatter time.
# # # @
END COMMENT 1
Does superstring snapping explain dark matter and dark energy? Does superstring snapping combined with discreteness and determinism in superstrings make testable predictions?
According to t Hooft, With discrete degrees of freedom one can construct Hilbert space in a quite natural way by postulating that any state of the physical degrees of freedom corresponds to an element of this Hilbert space. Reversibility in time is required if we wish to see a quantum superposition principle; the norm of all states is then preserved if they are quantum superpositions of these basis elements.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9310026v2.pdf Dimensional Reduction in Quantum Gravity (version 2, page 2) by G. t Hooft, 2009
According to t Hooft, We claim that our observations add a new twist to discussions concerning the interpretation of quantum mechanics, which we call the cellular automaton (CA) interpretation."
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.3612v2.pdf Discreteness and Determinism in Superstrings by G. t Hooft, 2012
I have made two testable predictions: the alleged Fernndez-Raada-Milgrom effect and the space roar profile prediction. Is ephemeris time significantly different from atomic time? According to Fernndez-Raada and Tiemblo, not all of the dynamical clock-times are necessarily equivalent and the observational fingerprint of this nonequivalence has, curiously, the same form as that of the Pioneer anomaly.
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi....1139/p2012-086 Parametric Invariance and the Pioneer Anomaly Canadian Journal of Physics, 2012
http://www.ucm.es/info/electron/pub...1-Finaltext.pdf Parametric invariance and the Pioneer anomaly by A. Fernndez-Raada and A. Tiemblo, 2011
Consider the following conjecture: Based upon the ideas of Fernndez-Raada and Tiemblo, the -1/2 in the standard form of Einsteins field equations should be replaced by -1/2 + F(fundamental tensor, energy tensor, parameters from quantum gravity), where F is a positive function that is very small with respect to 1/2.
What is the likely implication of combining the preceding conjecture with non-relativistic MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modifi...tonian_dynamics
I claim that the -1/2 in the standard form of Einsteins field equations should be replaced by -1/2 + dark-matter-compensation-constant, where this constant is approximately (-1/2 + sqrt((6010)/4) * 10^-5). My analysis assumes that the 2012 statistical analysis for the Pioneer anomaly by Turyshev et al. is fundamentally wrong. In any case, as pointed out by Fernndez-Raada and Tiemblo, two other spaceships, Galileo and Ulysses, give similar estimates.
In July 2012, Turyshev et al. published a paper Support for the thermal origin of the Pioneer anomaly in Physical Review Letters that claims that there no Pioneer anomaly within the statistical error for thermal recoil and other unknown effects in the Pioneer data. According to Turyshev et al., We investigate the possibility that the anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft is due to the recoil force associated with an anisotropic emission of thermal radiation off the vehicles. To this end, relying on the project and spacecraft design documentation, we constructed a comprehensive finite-element thermal model of the two spacecraft. Then, we numerically solve thermal conduction and radiation equations using the actual flight telemetry as boundary conditions. We use the results of this model to evaluate the effect of the thermal recoil force on the Pioneer 10 spacecraft at various heliocentric distances. We found that the magnitude, temporal behavior, and direction of the resulting thermal acceleration are all similar to the properties of the observed anomaly. As a novel element of our investigation, we develop a parameterized model for the thermal recoil force and estimate the coefficients of this model independently from navigational Doppler data. We find no statistically significant difference between the two estimates and conclude that once the thermal recoil force is properly accounted for, no anomalous acceleration remains.
I claim that Turyshev et al. have combined supreme excellence in physics and computer modeling with a basic fallacy in statistical analysis. When performing a statistical analysis, the statisticians should decide what is the main point of the statistical analysis. There should be a null hypothesis versus an alternative hypothesis, or a series of null hypotheses versus alternative hypotheses. Tests are done and statisticians accept or reject hypotheses with statistical degrees of certainty. On p. 3 of their article, Turyshev et al. make the following statement:
The RTGs were coated with three mils of zirconia in a sodium silicate binder. No information is available in the literature about this particular type of paint when exposed to solar radiation, especially when exposed to solar radiation at the relatively high temperatures present on the RTG outer surfaces. Similar paints have experienced both an increase and a decrease of up to 5% in infrared emissivity. Approximately 25% of the RTG coated surfaces were exposed to solar irradiation. A calculation that takes into account the relative contribution of RTG heat to the total anisotropy yields a corresponding error figure of 25% in the overall energy budget.
I claim that the preceding statement is a blatant example of the statistical fallacy of assuming the alternative hypothesis based upon the null hypothesis that This particular type of paint exhibited no statistically significant increase or decrease in infrared emissivity. The error consists of assuming a worst case scenario and incorporating this assumption into analysis the without a quantitative statistical justification. In essence, Turyshev et al. have begged the question and disguised this begging of the question within a careful and accurate computer model of the empirical data. My guess is a realistic computer model of such emissivity effects would yield an error figure of drastically less than 25%, but in any case I claim that Turyshev et al. have committed an error in statistical analysis.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.2507v1.pdf Support for the thermal origin of the Pioneer anomaly
Is Newton-Einstein gravitational theory significantly wrong? Is Milgrom the Kepler of contemporary cosmology? Does the finite nature hypothesis challenge many fundamental assumptions in physics?
According to Goffinet, One of the main drawbacks of grand unification theories is the introduction of new gauge bosons which, in general, break up the lepton and baryon numbers and therefore allow the proton to decay. The current measurement settles firm constraints and has ruled out many of them including the original SU(5). Another drawback, aesthetic this time, is related to the breaking of the grand unification group. Usually this breaking requires several Higgs representations which imply a rather complex scalar sector with many physical scalar particles.
http://cp3.irmp.ucl.ac.be/upload/th...hd/goffinet.pdf A bottom-up approach to fermion masses, 2008 doctoral thesis by Franois Goffinet
If nature is finite and digital, then could such a natural property solve many problems connected with the grand unification group? Is it possible to refute superstring theory? No, because the string landscape and contrived brane interactions can provide models for any plausible, or implausible, physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory_landscape
What are the 3 main predictions of M-theory? The answer might be gravity, gauge/gravity duality, and supersymmetry.
http://www.sns.ias.edu/~witten/papers
According to Witten, supersymmetry is a new symmetry structure of elementary particles in which quantum variables are incorporated in the structure of space-time. The new symmetry prevents the particle interactions that would make the Higgs particle mass too big but, again, predicts a host of additional new particles that might be discovered at the LHC, and perhaps at the Tevatron.
http://www.sns.ias.edu/~witten/papers/Symmetry.pdf When symmetry breaks down by Edward Witten, 2004
Is supersymmetry considerably different in a finite multiverse as opposed to an infinite multiverse? Consider three beliefs about the foundations of physics:
(A) The equivalence principle is 100% empirically valid.
(B) The universe is infinite.
(C) Supersymmetry predicts many new particles.
My guess is that the work of Milgrom, McGaugh, and Kroupa refutes belief (A).
http://astroweb.case.edu/ssm/mond/ The MOND pages by Stacy McGaugh
http://www.astro.uni-bonn.de/~pavel..._cosmology.html Pavel Kroupa: Dark Matter, Cosmology and Progress website
I am also guessing that the space roar refutes belief (B) and suggests that the multiverse recycles in approximately 81.6 billion years ( 1.7 billion years).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_roar
In connection with belief (C), my guess is that supersymmetry with the finite nature hypothesis might predict one and only one new particle: a combined sfermion with spin 1/2 that travels at the speed of light. Are beliefs (A), (B), and (C) highly plausible? Yes, and perhaps all three of them are correct.
What is the physical meaning of AdS = CFT?
According to Maldacena, The gauge/gravity duality is an equality between two theories: On one side we have a quantum field theory in d spacetime dimensions. On the other side we have a gravity theory on a d+1 dimensional spacetime that has an asymptotic boundary which is d dimensional. It is also sometimes called AdS/CFT, because the simplest examples involve anti-de-Sitter space and conformal field theories. It is often called gauge-string duality. This is because the gravity theories are string theories and the quantum field theories are gauge theories. It is also referred to as holography because one is describing a d+1 dimensional gravity theory in terms of a lower dimensional system, in a way which is reminiscent of an optical hologram which stores a three dimensional image on a two dimensional plate. It is called a conjecture, but by now there is a lot of evidence that it is correct. In addition, there are some derivations based on physical arguments.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.6073v1.pdf The gauge/gravity duality by Juan Maldacena, 2011
According to Horowitz and Polchinski, The AdS/CFT system is entirely embedded in the framework of quantum mechanics. On the gauge theory side we have an explicit Hamiltonian and states we can think of as gauge invariant functionals of the fields. Thus the gravitational theory on the other side is quantum mechanical as well. In particular the metric fluctuates freely except at the AdS boundary. One is not restricted to perturbations about a particular background.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0602037.pdf Gauge/gravity duality (p. 10) by Gary T. Horowitz and Joseph Polchinski, 2006
According to Polchinski, Maldacenas equation AdS = CFT contains all the central concepts of fundamental physics: Maxwells equations to start with, and their non-Abelian extension, plus the Dirac and Klein-Gordon equations, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory and general relativity. Moreover, in addition to these known principles of nature, it contains several more that theorists have found appealing: supersymmetry, string theory, and extra dimensions, and it ties all of these together in an irreducible way.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1010.6134v1.pdf Introduction to Gauge/Gravity Duality by Joseph Polchinski, 2010
What is the geometry of the multiverse? Is the problem of geometrizing Feynman diagrams closely related to the question of how nature constrains superstring vibrations? Does the Leech lattice constrain superstring vibrations?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leech_lattice
Does superstring snapping provide the flow of time in a holographic multiverse? Is the unobserved portion of the multiverse, from the QFT viewpoint, similar to a hologram with an infinite number of dimensions? Is the multiverse similar to a quantum lattice of quantum lattices?
Here are 3 of my main ideas:
MILGROM DENIAL HYPOTHESIS: The main problem with string theory is that string theorists fail to realize that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology.
WOLFRAMS COSMOLOGICAL HYPOTHESIS: The maximum physical wavelength is the Planck length times the Fredkin-Wolfram constant.
PHYSICS LEVELS HYPOTHESIS: There are 4 fundamental levels of physics:
LEVEL 1. Newtonian mechanics and classical electromagnetic field theory;
LEVEL 2. Quantum field theory and general relativity theory;
LEVEL 3. Geometric string theory;
LEVEL 4. Lattice string theory with the finite nature hypothesis.
What might the preceding hypotheses imply? Consider the following conjectures (D), (E), and (F):
CONJECTURE (D) The combined sfermion conjecture: Bosons and fermions are never unified except at the level of virtual energy. Supersymmetry with the finite nature hypothesis predicts that the graviton is the superpartner of the combined sfermion and that the combined sfermion is the only superparticle found in nature. The combined sfermion has spin 1/2, travels at the speed of light, and is the explanation for the GZK paradox. The combined sfermion is involved in the following gravitational energy transfers:
(1) SUPERSTRING SNAPPING DURING THE BIG BANG EXPANSION:
superstring > (gravitational energy transferred from the boundary to the interior of the multiverse) + combined sfermion
(2) SUPERSTRING RESNAPPING DURING THE BIG STOP TO THE BIG BANG:
combined sfermion > superstring + (gravitational energy transferred from the interior to the boundary of the multiverse)
BEGIN COMMENT 2
Why have I called this hypothetical particle a combined sfermion? It is a poor choice for a name. In my previous thinking, it was a paradigm-breaking photon. I am unsure whether this is a fermion, a boson, or a mixture of fermion(s) and/or boson(s). In order to clarify what is going on, I would need a mathematical model.
END COMMENT 2
CONJECTURE (E) The superstring gravitational cycle conjecture: Nature is finite and digital with superstring determinism running on a cycle of 81.6 billion years (1.7 billion years). The cycle runs by transferring gravitational energy from the boundary to the interior of the multiverse in the expansion phase of the synchronized big bangs. During the synchronized big stops to the big bangs, all the gravitational energy lost by the boundary is regained. During the synchronized cosmological inflation of the big bangs, all of the cosmological inflation occurs during one Planck time interval. The first Planck time interval consists of SU(5) (or SO(10)) physics with all bosons consisting of gravitons and with all fermions consisting of a combined sfermion that has spin 1/2 and travels at the speed of light. After the first Planck time interval, all cosmological inflation ceases. The second and subsequent Planck time intervals consist of SU(3) X SU(2) X U(1) physics. The big bang is identical to the big stop to the big bang with SU(5) (or SO(10)) physics and with gravitons and combined sfermions at their maximum energy density. The interior of the multiverse consists of SO(64) physics. Dark energy is direct evidence for superstring snapping, i.e., D-brane noise accompanying transfer of gravitational energy from the boundary to the interior of the multiverse. Because superstrings are under enormous tension, they sometimes snap and cool off, thus creating an excess of quantum vacuum and a deficiency of gravitational attraction in each particular universe. Dark matter is indirect evidence for superstring snapping, i.e., D-brane reinforcement of the gravitational signal in the form of excess gravitational redshift. The dark energy of all the alternate universes causes dark matter to be observed in each particular universe.
CONJECTURE (F) The 72-ball conjecture: There is an approximate quantum field theory in 71 spacetime dimensions linked to the monster group and the six pariah groups. The 71 dimensions are needed to accommodate all the group symmetries from the 26 sporadic groups. There is an approximate gravitational theory in 72 spacetime dimensions. The smoothing of Wolframs mobile automaton is somewhat similar to a huge 72-ball with a vast number of tiny alternate universes on its boundary, which is approximately a 71-sphere with many tiny bubbles representing alternate universes. The alternate universes are arranged in pairs with matter time in one member of the pair and with antimatter time in the other member of the pair. All of the alternate universes remain on the boundary and are informationally bound together through the interior of the 72-ball. The 72-ball undergoes a perpetual cycle of cooling and reheating of the boundary. The passage of time occurs because of superstring snapping. A superstring is either shared between the boundary and the interior or else localized to one particular alternate universe. If a shared superstring snaps then it cools off and becomes localized to one particular alternate universe. This superstring snapping process creates an excess of quantum vacuum. Superstring snapping occurs at a constant rate and explains the nonzero cosmological constant, which might also be called D-brane noise. The superstring snapping process also explains the fact that the dark-matter-compensation-constant is nonzero. A snapped string localized to one particular alternate universe reinforces the gravitational signal found in all the alternate universes. Thus string snapping cause D-brane reinforcement of the gravitational signal, i.e., a uniform excess of gravitational redshift interpreted as dark matter. There are 2 fundamental speeds in the multiverse: c, the speed of light in a vacuum found in each alternate universe, and C, the speed of light in the interior of the multiverse. All of the alternate universes are located on the boundary of the 72-ball geometry of the multiverse. The interior of the 72-ball is an ultra-hot ultra-vacuum with a speed C which is enormously greater than the speed c. Virtual mass-energy is shared between the boundary and the interior of the 72-ball. Real mass-energy is localized to some particular alternate universe on the boundary of the 72-ball. If nature were not finite, then the speed C would be infinite and the interior of the 72-ball would have zero energy-density. The interior of the 72-ball contracts as the synchronized big bangs of the alternate universes expand. When the big bangs reach their maximum expansion in about 81.6 billion years ( 1.7 billion years) then the synchronized big stops to the big bangs occur in precisely one Planck time interval. During the synchronized big bang singularities, the interior of the 72-ball recovers all of the virtual energy that it has lost during the expansion phase, and the interior of the 72-ball expands to its maximum diameter in precisely one Planck time interval. The M-theoretical fundamental domain is 11-dimensional because there are 11 basic superstring waves that periodically vibrate on a lattice consisting of (Leech lattice) <DIRECT SUM> (Leech lattice) <DIRECT SUM> (Leech lattice). D-brane gravitation controls the expansions and contractions of the boundary and interior of the 72-ball. Unified D-brane electromagnetism with 24 D-brane charges explains the Standard Model of particle physics. There are 3 generations of particles because there are 3 distinct energy-density levels in the fundamental lattice structure of the multiverse. The Standard Model exists because there are 26 sporadic groups.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sporadic_group
BEGIN COMMENT 3
How can this 72-ball concept yield 4 dimensional spacetime? There are 3 dimensions of 24-dimensional Leech lattice, so that when the vibrating Leech lattices are measured with long-wavelength devices the 72 dimensions of motion appear to be only 3 dimensions of vibration or motion.
END COMMENT 3
Is the 72-ball hypothesis completely wrong? Perhaps so, but why have string theorists failed to explain dark energy? What is the physical meaning of AdS = CFT in terms of dark matter and dark energy?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 01-07-2013 11:35 AM
David Brown is online now Click Here to See the Profile for David Brown Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Post New Thread    Post A Reply
Pages (2): « 1 [2]   Last Thread   Next Thread
Show Printable Version | Email this Page | Subscribe to this Thread


 

wolframscience.com  |  wolfram atlas  |  NKS online  |  Wolfram|Alpha  |  Wolfram Science Summer School  |  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