Registered: May 2009
The cosmological constant and the Fredkin-Wolfram constant
Is NKS Chapter 9 the basis for understanding the cosmological constant? Einstein’s cosmological constant (usually denoted by the Greek capital letter lambda) was proposed as a modification of his original theory of general relativity to achieve a stationary universe. Einstein abandoned the concept after Hubble’s observation of the cosmological redshift indicated that the universe is expanding. However, in the 1990s the discovery of cosmic acceleration suggested that there might be a nonzero cosmological constant.
Does understanding of dark energy and the nonzero cosmological constant require a model of physics consisting of Fredkin’s alternate-universe engine based upon 4 fundamental constants: Newton’s gravitational constant, Planck’s constant, the speed of light, and the Fredkin-Wolfram constant? Consider Wolfram’s cosmological principle:
THE MAXIMUM PHYSICAL WAVELENGTH EQUALS THE PLANCK LENGTH TIMES THE FREDKIN-WOLFRAM CONSTANT.
Without Wolfram’s cosmological principle, are M-theorists buried alive under too many cosmological models? Does the sharpening of NKS Chapter 9 to the Fredkin delivery machine and the Nambu transfer machine solve the problem of the incomprehensible cosmological constant?
“There was a long history of speculation that in quantum gravity, unlike Einstein’s classical theory, it might be possible for the topology of spacetime to change.” — Edward Witten
The problem is that we do not know any physical mechanism that could calculate the cosmological constant. — David Gross
Spreading out the particle into a string is a step in the direction of making everything we’re familiar with fuzzy. You enter a completely new world where things aren’t at all what we’re familiar with. — Witten
The idea is to withhold belief until there is compelling evidence. — Carl Sagan
Space and time may be doomed. — Witten
Astronomical observations indicate that the observable universe consists of 75% dark energy, 21% dark matter, and 4% normal mass/energy. “Einstein’s cosmological constant = energy of the vacuum … The quantum vacuum is full of fluctuating fields.” The empirical evidence for the cosmological constant suggests a value of roughly (10**-4) ((eV)**4).
“Is Quantum Mechanics the ultimate description of nature, or will it fail somewhere?” — David Gross
Are paradigm-breaking photons emerging from black holes the explanation of the GZK paradox and the empirical proof that quantum field theory fails when spacetime fails? Is the ultimate law of the multiverse that informational substrate makes Nambu digital data makes digital physical reality? Are Nambu quantum field theory and M-theory the basic description of the Fredkin delivery machine and the Nambu transfer machine?
THREE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS:
Does the law of the conservation of energy together with the f(div) theory of modified general relativity theory allow the calculation of the cosmological constant? If the answer to the preceding question is yes, then are we stuck with a discrepant, but not ridiculous, value for the cosmological constant? If the answer to the immediately preceding question is yes, then is the discrepant value for the amount of dark energy fully explained by the Fredkin-Wolfram information process that underlies physics?
IS THERE NOW OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE IN FAVOR of the f(div) theory?
According to Tremaine of I.A.S., the universe consists of 76% dark energy, 20% dark matter, and 4% ordinary mass/energy. Is the simplest way of explaining dark matter to introduce Wolfram's cosmological principle? Is the simplest explanation also now abundantly confirmed by astronomical observations?
Last edited by David Brown on 05-08-2010 at 02:46 PM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged