Registered: May 2009
Does M-theory with Wolfram's automaton predict the ratio of matter to dark energy?
Is the ratio of matter to dark energy approximately equal to 3/8 and, if so, is there a theoretical reason for this approximation? Have astrophysicists avoided coming to grips with Milgrom’s ideas for far too long? Has Wolfram’s NKS Chapter 9 received the attention it deserves?
Who ever knew truth to the worse, in a free and open encounter? — John Milton
I claim that Seiberg-Witten M-theory with neutralino physics and modified M-theory with Wolfram’s automaton both predict the Rañada-Milgrom effect, which is that the -1/2 in the standard form of Einstein’s field equations should be replaced by -1/2 + sqrt(15) * 10**-5. I predict that the Rañada-Milgrom effect shall revolutionize cosmology by June 2012 CE. (See “Dark matter: why should Rañada and Milgrom win the Nobel prize?” nks forum applied nks.) Is the problem of explaining dark matter closely related to the problem of explaining the justification for renormalization in quantum field theory? Does dark matter indicate the need for an M-theoretical revolution in the foundations of physics?
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.5122v1 “MD or DM? Modified dynamics at low accelerations versus dark matter” by M. Milgrom, 2010, Proceedings of Science
http://www.astro.uni-bonn.de/~pavel..._cosmology.html Pavel Kroupa: Dark Matter, Cosmology and Progress (July 4, 2010)
Quantum field theory is plagued with infinities, starting with the infinite electrostatic self-energy of the electron. The infinities come from the singularities of the Feynman diagrams. … Sometimes the infinities can be “renormalized” away; that is the case for electrodynamics and for the weak and strong interactions in the Standard Model of elementary-particle physics. But for gravity, renormalization theory fails, because of the nature of the inherent nonlinearities in general relativity theory. So we come to a key puzzle: The existence of gravity clashes with our description of the rest of physics by quantum fields. … We have one real candidate for changing the rules: this is string theory. — Edward Witten, “Reflections on the Fate of Spacetime”
M-theory resolves the problem of the infinite electrostatic self-energy of the electron in a mathematically satisfactory way — but what about the ambiguous electrostatic self-energy of the electron? Is it satisfactory to introduce a cut-off parameter without an axiomatic justification for the cut-off? Are the foundations of physics mathematically and intellectually satisfactory in the form they have today? Is Stephen Wolfram’s “A New Kind of Science” as great a book as Isaac Newton’s “Principia”?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philos...pia_Mathematica Newton's "Principia"
“A New Kind of Science” describes a vast array of remarkable new discoveries made by thinking in terms of programs — and how those discoveries force a rethinking of many existing areas of science. — Stephen Wolfram
I think that the vast majority of physicists would say that NKS is not in the same league as Newton’s “Principia” — but I conjecture that they are wrong.
Consider Wolfram’s cosmological principle: The maximum physical wavelength is the Planck length times the Fredkin-Wolfram constant.
Does our universe expand forever or undergo an instantaneous quantum collapse at some point in the future? Our universe is approximately 13.75 billion years old but could it be hung up in a run-loop within Wolfram’s automaton? Wolfram’s cosmological principle implies that our universe is a 3-sphere with radius R(t), where t is the number of Planck time units that have elapsed since the big bang. The 3-dimensional volume (or hyperarea) of a 3-sphere of radius R is 2 * (pi**2) * R**3.
According to my physical interpretation of modified M-theory with Wolfram’s automaton, the equivalence principle is valid for real mass-energy but not for virtual mass-energy; conjecturally, virtual mass-energy has zero inertial mass-energy and nonzero gravitational mass-energy. In my physical interpretation of Seiberg-Witten M-theory with neutralino physics and with D-brane noise as dark energy, the equivalence principle is 100% valid but there is some unknown M-theoretical force that obscures most of the inertial mass-energy of the neutralinos. The following analysis applies only to my physical interpretation of M-theory with Wolfram’s automaton. (See the postings “Cosmological revolution and the Rañada-Milgrom effect” and “Does D-brane M-theory with the Higgs boson resolve the vacuum catastrophe?” at nks forum applied nks.) Suppose that the multiverse is isomorphic to a finite automaton spread across a huge, but finite, number of alternate universes. Assume that this hypothetical automaton undergoes a complete cycle approximately every 81.6 billion years. Our universe starts out as one of a pair of matter/antimatter universes. In the grand unification epoch, there is (SU(8) matter) X (SU(8) antimatter) physics. In the inflation epoch, there is SU(5) physics. In our epoch, there is U(1) X SU(2) X SU(3) physics. At the Big Stop to the Big Bang, there is SU(8)/SU(5) physics. According to my theory, the % of dark matter + the % of standard matter is a constant % at all times in the evolution of the Big Bang, although the % of dark matter starts off near zero at the time of the Big Bang and steadily increases according to the Wolframian updating parameter. Also, in my theory, at the time of the Big Stop to the Big Bang, the % of standard matter has dwindled to nearly zero. What might be a valid way to calculate (dark_energy_%) / (dark_matter_% + standard_matter_%) ? At the time of the Big Stop, there would be ∫ (|eigenvalue(1,8,x)| + … |eigenvalue(8,8,x)|) µ8(dx), where the 8 eigenvalue functions are integrated in the SU(8) gravitational space with measure µ8; call this the SU(8) term. In order to get an approximation for the SU(5) term, replace SU(5) by SU(3) X SU(2) X U(1). Since quarks are much heavier than leptons and bosons, we can discard SU(2) and U(1) to get an approximation accurate to about 1 part in 2000 (the approximate ratio of the electron mass to the proton mass). We would have ∫(|eigenvalue(1,3,x)| + … + |eigenvalue(3,3,x)|) µ3(dx), where the 3 eigenvalue functions are integrated in the SU(3) gravitational space with measure µ3. If mass-energy is linearly additive, then we would expect to get a ratio of the SU(8) term to the SU(3) term of approximately 8/3, with accuracy 1 part in 2000 but with failure at higher accuracy.
% of dark energy = .728 ± .016; % of dark matter = .227 ± .014; % of standard matter = .0456 ± .0016.
According to Wolfram Alpha, (.728 ± .016)/.272 = 2.6747 ± .0588 and 8/3 = 2.6667 — is this a coincidence? I don’t think so but perhaps I am self-deluded. I predict that when M-theorists develop a model that accurately explains dark energy then they shall elaborate my conjecture to 10 decimal places of accuracy. I further conjecture that astronomical observations will eventually verify all 10 decimal places. How is that I cheated on the 8/3 — is my conjectural argument invalid? I say this: let those who scoff at NKS Chapter 9 explain the space roar.
DOES M-THEORY NEED NEW PHYSICAL HYPOTHESES?
M-theorists seem to realize that quantum field theory is 100% valid unless spacetime fails. However, I claim that M-theorists do not realize that if you have nonlinear partial differential equations that link a Fundamental Tensor to an energy tensor of ponderable matter, then the quantum information explosion makes the Fundamental Tensor into a hyper-uncertainty if spacetime fails according to brane mechanisms. If spacetime fails according to Wolfram’s automaton then predictions are possible — but if spacetime fails according to brane interactions then you get the string theory landscape and not much else. Even if Fredkin, Wolfram, and Brown are wrong, then M-theorists still need to trim their theory according to the primary harmonics of superstrings to get a deterministic framework for approximation.
According to Wolfram Alpha, (((4 pi) + .11)**-4)/(sqrt(15) * 10**-5) = 0.9999417 … does this mean anything in terms of physics?
According to Wolfram Alpha, (((4 pi) * (1 + (zeta(2)/(60 pi))))**-4)/(sqrt(15) * 10**-5) = 1.00004822 … does this have a physical meaning?
Also note that (137.0359990 * (sqrt(15) * 10**-5))**.25 - pi/12 = .00811130 …
Can the fine structure constant be calculated in terms of pi and zeta(3) ?
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics.gen-ph/0703151v6 “Physics based calculation of the fine structure constant” by J. P. Lestone
Does Lestone have a number of good ideas? According to Wolfram Alpha,
(3 * zeta(3) *137.035999/16)* (1 + (5 * pi)/(63 * 64))/ pi**3 = .999999997…
Last edited by David Brown on 03-29-2011 at 02:19 AM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged