Registered: May 2009
M-theoretical superstring religion: orthodoxy versus heresy
Is NKS Chapter 9 essential for understanding the foundations of physics?
Hypothesis of Heretical M-theory: Heretical M-theory, or modified M-theory with Wolfram’s automaton, is more-or-less the same as orthodox M-theory with the added hypotheses that superstrings are virtual unifications of waves and particles spread across alternate universes, the number of alternate universes is finite, and there is a uniform upper bound for the number of primary harmonics of superstrings.
Can orthodox M-theory and heretical M-theory both explain the Koide formula?
Field theory is clearly not the end of the story, so something smaller and better is needed: Enter the superstring. — Paul Ginsparg & Sheldon Glashow
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/9403001 “Desperately Seeking Superstrings?”
The year 1995 witnessed a new paradigm shift: … M-theory … These new insights hold promise of a deeper understanding of the Standard Model of particle physics, of the unification of the four fundamental forces, of the quantum theory of gravity, of the mysteries of black holes, of big-bang cosmology and, ultimately, of their complete synthesis in a final theory of physics. — Michael J. Duff, “The world in eleven dimensions: supergravity, supermembranes and M-theory”, 1999
If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough. — Einstein
We don’t listen to them, and they don’t listen to us. — Sheldon Glashow, Nobel Laureate
Have orthodox M-theorists reacted to Glashow in a manner unfortunately similar to religious cult members reacting to an intelligent, well-informed critic from another religion? Does orthodox M-theory need the addition of several new hypotheses that come from new physics and not merely new mathematics?
M-theory is the version of superstring theory developed by Witten to unite the 5 apparently different models of superstring theory. Are the modes of vibrating superstrings unlimited in number? How might M-theory explain dark matter, dark energy, and space roar? Is dark matter the empirical evidence for the existence of neutralinos or similar particles? Are dark energy and space roar the empirical evidence for the existence of brane transitions for neutralinos? Are there neutralino shells that can be filled or unfilled? Does dark energy consists of unfilled neutralino shells? Is space roar the empirical evidence that non-neutralino particles can decay into neutralinos? Does nondeterministic M-theory predict particles and brane transitions that explain all the fundamental puzzles in cosmology and the foundations of physics?
In postings at this forum, I have presented ideas for a deterministic physical interpretation of modified M-theory combined with a Fredkin-Wolfram information process — does empirical evidence prove that my ideas are wrong? What are the correct explanations for Milgrom’s Law and the space roar? Is there a valid Rañada effect that explains the Pioneer anomaly and, if so, whose physical theory correctly explains the Rañada effect?
By postulating neutralinos that are too light to be detected, can nondeterministic M-theory generate some model for any physics whatsoever? By postulating alternate universes forces that are too small to be detected, can Fredkin’s digital philosophy generate some model for any physics whatsoever? Is NKS Chapter 9 testable in the sense that if it is correct then the Wolframian updating parameter is likely to have a dramatic physical manifestation? Do Wolfram’s basic ideas lead to a physical interpretation of M-theory with many testable predictions?
Science does not know its debt to imagination. — Emerson
No one would talk much in society if they knew how often they misunderstood others. — Goethe
The reasons that people give are not necessarily the true reasons that are motivating their brain, you might say. — Francis Crick
Our best thoughts come from others. — Emerson
It is the test of a good religion whether you can joke about it. — G. K. Chesterton
There are good reasons for believing things, and bad reasons for believing things. The good reasons are all related to evidence. — Richard Dawkins
Happy is the hearing man; unhappy the speaking man. — Emerson
All sin tends to be addictive, and the terminal point of addiction is what is called damnation. — W. H. Auden
It is best to avoid the beginnings of evil. — Thoreau
There are no rules of architecture for a castle in the clouds. — G. K. Chesterton
The thing you know in science is never absolutely right — you can never say that. It’s the best interpretation you have at the time. But some interpretations are so good that it’s probably foolish to doubt them most of the time — so you don’t doubt them. ... But you have to know what all these previous interpretations of the data are … otherwise you can’t begin thinking in a scientific way about some new problem. … There may be something which you think is a well-established fact or well-established theory, which nevertheless isn’t quite right or may have to be looked at in an entirely different way. So all of scientific knowledge is provisional. But the feather hand — the paradox — is that it has much greater degree of certainty than most ordinary knowledge — which people think is certain … but isn’t. — Francis Crick
It isn’t that they can’t see the solution. It is that they can’t see the problem. — G. K. Chesterton
Every man I meet is in some way my superior. — Emerson
Evil is whatever distracts. — Kafka
All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. — Einstein
Brown’s Law of Religion and Science: If you want to scientifically improve your religion then you need to carefully study the ideas of the best infidels, blasphemers, and heretics against your religion. Science is a religion that occasionally takes into account empirical evidence.
What evidence is there to support the preceding law? The reactions of physicists to Milgrom’s Law show that physicists tend to ignore or reject empirical findings that run counter to prevailing orthodoxy.
Consider 4 cosmological principles:
Wolfram’s cosmological principle: The maximum physical wavelength is the Planck length times the Fredkin-Wolfram constant.
Fredkin’s cosmological principle of alternate universes: Einstein’s equivalence principle is valid for virtual mass-energy if and only if there do not exist weird forces from alternate universes.
Einstein’s cosmological principle of determinism: There exists some deterministic trans-quantum theory underlying quantum theory.
Superstring cosmological principle of virtual energy-density levels: Superstrings are virtual unifications of waves and particles that are separated into three distinct levels of virtual energy-density. The three levels are caused by the fact that the quaternions lack a finite mathematical model, and nature needs to provide three copies of virtual 3-dimensional space with approximate (i,j,k) quaternions.
I mistakenly identified the central dogma of M-theory as a cosmological principle. I now correct the error by presenting:
The Central Dogma of M-theoretical Superstring Religion: The existence of gravitons and plausible physical hypotheses imply that M-theory in some form is the only valid way to unify gravitation and quantum field theory by means of a mathematical theory that predicts gravitons.
I also present:
The Central Dogma of M-theoretical Supersymmetry Religion: There exist some esoteric new physical principle that enables some curling-up mechanism or compactification method to predict paradigm-breaking new particles that empirically prove that supersymmetry and M-theory are both correct.
I endorse the first dogma but reject the second dogma. Of course, I have my own heretical dogma:
The Alternate Universe Dogma of M-theoretical Supersymmetry Religion: Modified M-theory with Wolfram’s automaton suggests that M-theory occurs in nature as a smoothing of the Nambu transfer machine. Fredkin-Wolfram information below the Planck scale makes Nambu digital data for Nambu quantum field theory, which in turn makes quantum information for quantum reality. The Fredkin delivery machine makes Nambu digital data. The Nambu transfer machine uses Nambu digital data to make approximations of quantum information, time, space, virtual energy, and real energy. Quantum field theory is 100% accurate unless spacetime breaks down. Einstein’s equivalence principle is 100% accurate for real energy but fails badly for virtual energy. Supersymmetry occurs in nature as a fundamental computational symmetry for the Fredkin-Wolfram information process spread across alternate universes. M-theory as originally formulated is the ambiguous limit, as the Fredkin-Wolfram constant approaches infinity, of modified M-theory with the Nambu transfer machine. Here, the Nambu transfer machine requires for its definition detailed empirical data on paradigm-breaking photons that explain the GZK paradox.
Does the empirical validation of M-theory require at least one of the following three things: paradigm-breaking new particles, paradigm-breaking gravity waves, or paradigm-breaking photons? Why should paradigm-breaking photons exist? If the black hole model as found in the original formulation of M-theory is replaced by a finite, digitized black hole model, then there should be dramatic physical evidence for such ultra-weirdness. A study of unexplained physical phenomena points to the GZK paradox as the only likely candidate.
Is Einstein’s cosmological principle of determinism the way of simplicity and basic logic? Does the vacuum catastrophe prove that quantum field theory is flawed in terms of mathematical logic?
Consider two mutually exclusive hypotheses:
Hypothesis of Continuous, Physically Real Superstrings: Nature fundamentally consists of smooth geometry. Nature makes smooth transitions in terms of time. Because superstrings are physically real, there is a curling-up mechanism that explains why the extra physical dimensions are too small to be directly physically observable. M-theory, in some form, predicts paradigm-breaking new particles that cannot be predicted by quantum field theory without some form of M-theory. A big bang expands forever with the universe getting slightly colder with each Planck time interval.
Hypothesis of Finite, Digitized, Virtual Superstrings: Nature is finite and digital. NKS Chapter 9 is a correct qualitative description of the way that nature works. Nature makes discontinuous transitions in terms of Wolframian time. In the most fundamental concepts of temporal physics, there are two measurable forms of time, namely Newtonian and Einsteinian, and there is one unmeasurable form of time, namely Wolframian, below the Planck scale. Because superstrings are physically virtual and approximations created by the Wolframian automaton, there is no curling-up mechanism but instead there is an information transfer mechanism from alternate universes. Because there is no curling-up mechanism, any new particles that are predicted by M-theory can also be predicted by quantum field theory without M-theory. However, quantum field theory without some form of M-theory must fail to explain how elementary particles acquire rest masses and must fail to explain the resolution of the vacuum catastrophe. Space roar is the physical manifestation of the Wolframian updating parameter. Dark matter and dark energy are empirical evidence that alternate universes exist. Modified M-theory with Wolfram’s automaton explains the Rañada effect underlying the Pioneer anomaly, Milgrom’s Law, the Koide formula, the inflationary epoch of the early universe, and the cyclic nature of the big bangs for alternate universes. There is a maximum physical wavelength in the multiverse of alternate universes.
http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2010-4 review of Pioneer anomaly
What are the two basic points of this posting? First, should orthodox M-theorists ask what new physical hypotheses they need to explain dark matter, dark energy, space roar, and the Koide formula? Second, is heretical M-theory with oddly phrased new physical hypotheses and the weird-forces-from-alternate-universes viewpoint mathematically isomorphic to orthodox M-theory with new physical hypotheses and the too-light-to-be-detectable-neutralinos viewpoint?
In terms of operational physics, is a real violation of the equivalence principle by weird forces from alternate universes the same as an apparent violation of the equivalence principle by neutralinos that are too light to be detected?
Last edited by David Brown on 01-17-2011 at 08:49 AM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged