Registered: May 2009
Virtual Feynman diagrams and D-brane noise: two physical interpretations of M-theory
Physicists learned rather unexpectedly, beginning in the early 1970s, that the problem of quantum gravity could be overcome by introducing a new sort of fuzziness. One replaces “point particles” by “strings”. … The five string theories traditionally studied are different limiting cases of one richer and still little-understood theory … M-theory, where M stands for magic, mystery, or matrix, according to taste. — Edward Witten, “Magic, Mystery, and Matrix”
A D-brane is a miniature black hole on which strings can end. … D-branes have the unusual property that their positions are measured by matrices. … The non-commutativity of the position matrics gives, if string theory is correct, a new kind of ‘uncertainty’ in physics, though it has not yet been put in such a nice form as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. — Edward Witten, “Black holes and quark confinement”
Do position matrices for D-branes yield anomalies in Bekenstein-Hawking radiation just as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle yields anomalies in classical radiation models? Physicists know that electromagnetic noise exists, but is there such a thing as D-brane noise?
Are D-branes relevant to physical observations? Do D-branes drain heat from the universe as they help to maintain the curling-up of extra superstring dimensions? Can orthodox M-theory explain dark matter, dark energy, space roar, the Pioneer anomaly, Milgrom’s Law, the CMB anisotropy, and the Koide formula? Can virtual Feynman diagrams and D-brane noise provide a satisfactory physical interpretation of orthodox M-theory?
Axiom of Virtual Feynman Diagrams: A Feynman diagram operates on 4-dimensional Minkowski space. A virtual Feynman diagram operates on 11-dimensional mystery space and has matter time, antimatter time, 3 dimensions of pitch, 3 dimensions of roll, and 3 dimensions of yaw. A Feynman diagram drawn on a general relativistic model has a mystification consisting of a virtual Feynman diagram with the 9 dimensions of pitch, roll, and yaw representing the gravitational distortions of the original diagram and with matter time and antimatter time representing the redshifted time and the parity of the original diagram. Given any set S of Feynman diagrams drawn on a general relativistic model, the mysterious average of the mystification of set S equals the quantum average of the Feynman diagrams in set S.
Fredkin’s Cosmological Principle for Alternate Universes: The equivalence principle is valid for virtual mass-energy if and only if there do not exist weird forces from alternate universes.
Physical Interpretation of M-theoretical D-Brane Physics: Suppose that Fredkin’s cosmological principle is true because true iff true. Dark matter is empirical evidence for neutralinos or other sterile dark matter particles predicted by orthodox M-theory. Dark energy is empirical evidence that D-brane noise exists. For some M-theoretical mathematical reason, D-branes drain heat from the universe and cause the empirical display of D-brane noise. Space roar might be empirical evidence that non-neutralino particles can decay into neutralinos. Space roar might be empirical evidence that neutralinos or similar particles undergo cycles of transition from electromagnetic noise to D-brane noise. The GZK paradox might be empirical evidence that the generation of detectable superheavy supersymmetric particles is associated with events near black holes. The -1/2 in Einstein’s field equations is 100% correct but neutralinos or other dark matter matter particles are distributed so that an empirically heuristic distortion appears to occur for the field equations. The heuristic model consists of replacing the -1/2 in the field equations by -1/2 + dark-matter-compensation-constant/2. The cosmological constant in Einstein’s field equations should be equal to zero, but D-brane noise causes the cosmological constant to appear to have a small value representing energy that is gravitationally repulsive. In other words, D-branes cause empty neutralino shells to mysteriously appear in spacetime.
Physical Interpretation of Heretical M-theory: Suppose that Fredkin’s cosmological principle is true because false iff false. Dark matter is empirical evidence that there exists virtual mass-energy with zero inertial mass-energy and positive gravitational mass-energy. Dark energy is empirical evidence that there exists virtual mass-energy with zero inertial mass-energy and negative gravitational mass-energy. Space roar is empirical evidence that the Wolframian updating parameter exists. The GZK paradox is empirical evidence that there exist paradigm-breaking photons that arise because black holes are part of finite, digital nature as explained by Wolfram’s “A New Kind of Science” Chapter 9.
What do these two physical interpretations mean in observational terms? At nks forum applied nks, I have posted quantitative explanations of space roar, the Rañada effect for the Pioneer anomaly, Milgrom’s Law, and the CMB anisotropy. The explanations were framed in terms of heretical M-theory but the explanations are mathematically isomorphic to explanations from orthodox M-theoretical D-brane physics.
Hypothesis of Seiberg-Witten M-theory: Suppose there is a curling-up mechanism, or compactification method, for orthodox M-theory. Under this supposition the following conditions hold:
(A) spacetime breaks down at the alpha-prime scale; this breakdown consists of an enlargement in the topological and geometric complexity of spacetime;
(B) for sufficiently high energies, nature contains supersymmetric particles that are predicted by M-theory but not by quantum field theory without M-theory;
(C) superstrings might have real vibrations in higher dimensions;
(D) M-theory does not necessarily prove that alternate universes exist in nature but does prove that D-branes exist in nature;
(E) nature is infinite and nondeterministic in the sense of the Copenhagen interpretation.
Hypothesis of Fredkin-Witten M-theory: Suppose that there is no curling-up mechanism for orthodox M-theory. Under this supposition the following conditions hold:
(a) quantum field theory is 100% accurate unless spacetime breaks down; such breakdown occurs below the Planck scale, because nature is finite and digital and there is an information transfer method from alternate universes that consists of the Nambu transfer machine, which approximates orthodox M-theory by means of a smoothing process;
(b) supersymmetry is not manifested by observable particles but instead supersymmetry occurs as an approximate symmetry found in Wolfram’s automaton;
(c) superstrings are virtual unifications of waves and particles but they are merely approximations created by Wolfram’s automaton;
(d) heretical M-theory proves that alternate universes exist and proves that D-branes are merely mathematical approximations found in Wolfram’s automaton;
(e) nature is finite, digital, and totally deterministic.
Can orthodox M-theorists find a way to separate the 11-dimensional mystery domain into 3 distinct energy-density levels and thus explain the 3 generations in particle physics and also explain the Koide formula as a generalization of the force law with the square of the unknown-M-traces of the 3 charged lepton matrices = sum of the squares of the unknown-M-norms of the 3 charged lepton matrices?
Note that there might be an important qualitative difference in the empirical predictions from deterministic (or heretical) M-theory and orthodox M-theory. Heretical M-theory and the Chapline-Laughlin theory of dark energy stars would both seem to suggest that paradigm-breaking photons associated with black holes should explain the GZK paradox. Orthodox M-theory would seem to suggest that paradigm-breaking new supersymmetric particles should explain the GZK paradox; these paradigm-breaking new supersymmetric particles should somehow be associated with black holes. D-brane mechanisms associated with black holes might also predict paradigm-breaking photons, but paradigm-breaking new supersymmetric particles would seem somewhat more likely, perhaps.
Note: The ideas of Chapline and others on creating a superfluidic model of quantum gravity should not be overlooked. The superfluidic approach in some form is probably isomorphic to M-theory in some form. Zel’dovich-Guth inflation might be correctly modeled by a superfluidic phase transition for quantum gravity.
M-theorists should ask themselves: Could there be approximate isomorphism between 3 different things: (1) D-branes, (2) computational digital structures according to modified M-theory with Wolfram’s automaton, and (3) superfluidic wave structures?
Last edited by David Brown on 01-22-2011 at 11:56 AM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged