Registered: May 2009
Posts: 172

Is Wolfram’s “A New Kind of Science” one of the greatest books ever written? What does NKS Chapter 9 have to do with M-theory? Is modified M-theory with Wolfram’s automaton the limit of Seiberg-Witten M-theory as the neutralino mass approaches zero? If Seiberg-Witten M-theory lacks a plausible physical interpretation, then is modified M-theory with Wolfram’s automaton guaranteed to be wrong (because then there would be no plausible Nambu transfer machine)? Did David Brown stupidly fail to consider the previous question until he considered the concept of D-brane noise? Is space roar the physical manifestation of the Wolframian updating parameter?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science
Is M-theory not merely a cornucopia of profound mathematics but also a theory that shall be proven correct by means of David Brown’s prediction concerning the explanation of the CMB radiation spectrum anisotropy? (See the posting “M-theory with Wolfram’s automaton implies increases in the Sachs-Wolfe effects”, 12-27-2010, nks forum applied nks.) Does D-brane noise explain dark energy by means of a superfluidic theory of neutralinos paired across alternate universes? Have M-theorists failed to realize that if they cannot explain dark energy then one of 3 possibilities must be true: (1) M-theory needs new physical hypotheses, (2) M-theorists don’t understand M-theory, or (3) M-theory is fundamentally unsatisfactory?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluid
Our present understanding of superconductivity has arisen from a close interplay between theory and experiment. It would have been very difficult to have arrived at the theory by purely deductive reasoning from the basic equations of quantum mechanics. … The pairing theory has had wide application to Fermi systems other than electrons in metals. … pairing seems to be a general phenomenon in Fermi systems. — John Bardeen, Nobel prize lecture, 1972
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/...een-lecture.pdf
Why might Rañada and Milgrom be worthy of receiving the Nobel prize in physics or cosmology? I claim that the heuristically distorted model of general relativity theory (HDMOGRT) and the Rañada-Milgrom real-or-apparent effect might justify such worthiness.
Hypothesis 1. The explanation of dark matter consists of the Rañada-Milgrom real-or-apparent effect together with the heuristically distorted model of general relativity theory (HDMOGRT). There are two fundamentally different cases for the Rañada-Milgrom real-or-apparent effect. In case 1, dark matter consists of clouds or halos of dark matter particles that are extremely difficult to detect, and the -1/2 in Einstein’s field equations is 100% correct; however, because of the dark matter particles there is an apparent distortion in Einstein’s field equations so that the -1/2 apparently needs to be replaced by -1/2 + dark-matter-compensation-constant. In case 2, dark matter consists of some unknown, weird, or funny distortion in Einstein’s field equations and dark matter particles do not explain such a distortion; in this case, there is a real distortion in Einstein’s field equations so that the -1/2 needs to be replaced by -1/2 + FF/2, where FF is funny-factor based upon some funny, weird, or bizarre new theory of gravity. HDMOGRT consists of the heuristic model which combines the two mutually contradictory cases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
Professor Antonio F. Rañada in his Jan. 2005 paper entitled “The Pioneer anomaly as acceleration of the clocks” says that the frequency of photons increases uniformly and adiabatically because of the expansion of the universe and his phenomenological theory; whereas, I say that the frequency of the photons increases uniformly and adiabatically either because of my physical interpretation of modified M-theory with Wolfram’s automaton or because of my physical interpretation of Seiberg-Witten M-theory with neutralino physics.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0410084 “The Pioneer anomaly as acceleration of the clocks”
Hypothesis 2. The Pioneer anomaly is a consequence of dark matter as explained by the Rañada-Milgrom real-or-apparent effect. The real effect or the apparent effect would both support a heuristically distorted model of modified general relativity theory (HDMOGRT), in which the -1/2 in Einstein’s field equations is replaced by -1/2 + Rañada-constant/2, where Rañada-constant is roughly equal to sqrt(60) * 10**-5. The particular value of Rañada-constant comes from the Pioneer anomaly data. From the heuristic model of general relativity there is an anomalous Newtonian approximation for gravitational force (but not non-gravitational force):
Gravitational force = (1 + Rañada-constant) * mass * acceleration, where under Hypothesis 1 with dark-matter-compensation-constant, the dark matter force is apparent rather than real and is merely a result of the extreme difficulty in detecting dark matter particles. But under Hypothesis 1 with funny factor FF, the altered gravitational force is real and due to an unknown, weird, or funny distortion in Einstein’s field equations. In either case, the Rañada effect might lead to the valid physical interpretation of M-theory.
http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2010-4 review of Pioneer anomaly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
Hypothesis 3. Suppose that dark matter particles are the explanation for dark matter. Suppose F is gravitational force and the magnitude of the gravitational acceleration a is large relative to (µ * a(0) )/m. Let a(0) be Milgrom’s acceleration constant. We have
F = m * a * ((m * a)/(µ * a(0)))) if and only if
F * ( 1 / sqrt(1 – (2(µ * a(0))/(m * a))**2)) = m * a if only if
Einsteinian-redshift*(1 + dark-matter-compensation-factor/2) = m * a,
provided that 2(µ * a(0))/(m * a) = dark-matter-compensation-factor and we choose physical units in which gravitational redshift = Einsteinian gravitational acceleration due to gravitational force. Therefore, Milgrom’s acceleration law indicates that heuristically distorted model of general relativity theory (HDMOGRT) with either dark-matter-compensation-factor or the funny factor FF is observationally correct. In other words, the Rañada-Milgrom real-or-apparent effect explains Milgrom’s Law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modifi...tonian_dynamics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordehai_Milgrom
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0107284v4 “How Cold Dark Matter Explains Milgrom’s Law”
Note that the a(0) in Milgrom's Law is about 10**-8 cm/sec**2 and the Pioneer anomaly acceleration is about 8.74 * 10**-10 m/sec**2. Can there be a reasonable doubt that Milgrom's Law explains the Pioneer anomaly? Milgrom's Law kicks in precisely one order of magnitude in acceleration below the Pioneer anomaly acceleration — this is what one would expect if the -1/2 in Einstein's field equations is apparently replaced by -1/2 + dark-matter-compensation-factor/2, where dark-matter-compensation-factor/2 is very roughly sqrt(60/4) * 10**-5. If Seiberg-Witten M-theory is correct, then dark-matter-compensation-factor with dark matter particles should explain dark matter. Has Milgrom’s Law been ignored simply because it violates the accepted gravitational paradigm? What is the true explanation for dark matter? What is the precise distribution of dark matter in our universe? How can Hypothesis 1 be tested? The answer might be to study the flyby anomaly and the CMB radiation spectrum anisotropy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic...round_radiation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyby_anomaly
I think few people appreciate that the main difficulty for DM is that the host of regularities pointed out by MOND, if taken as just a summary of how DM behaves and interacts with normal matter, suggests that these two matter components are coupled and correlated very strongly in many ways. … if MOND does turn out to have some truth to it, the fact that it has encountered so much opposition will just show how nontrivial a thought it was. — Mordehai Milgrom, interview entitled “Dark-matter heretic”, American Scientist, Jan.-Feb. 2003, Vol. 91, #1, p. 1
http://www.americanscientist.org/is...-matter-heretic

Last edited by David Brown on 03-09-2011 at 10:59 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: May 2009
Posts: 172

Prof. Rañada seems to be the first physicist to realize that the Pioneer anomaly suggests an anomalous gravitational acceleration of clocks. In other words, anomalous-time-measured-in-seconds * sqrt(anomalous frequency shift per sec) = Rañada-Milgrom-adjustment-factor * Einsteinian-gravitational-redshift. In other words, if the Pioneer anomaly data is valid as to an anomaly in gravitational acceleration, then Einstein’s field equations need an adjustment that is real or apparent. The Lamdba-cold-dark-matter (LCDM) theory seems to have serious problems.
http://www.scilogs.eu/en/blog/the-dark-matter-crisis (Prof. Dr. Pavel Kroupa’s blog on the dark matter crisis)
The following is a slight modification of a post that I made to the preceding blog on 18 March 2011.
According to Prof. Dr. Kroupa, "... we do not how inertial mass arises. ... This, however, is not our immediate research problem. We are testing gravitational theories (Einstein/Newton, MOND ...) using astronomical data to constrain the gravitational framework." If dark matter particles exist then is most of their inertial mass-energy being obscured or somehow cancelled? Does astronomical data lead inevitably to either a real violation or an apparent violation of the equivalence principle? Note that the cold dark matter depends upon neutralinos, axions, or other supersymmetric particles that are not only undetected but also not precisely predicted. I used the Pioneer anomaly data with the discrepancy factor (6± 1) * 10**-9 Hz/sec (the unexpected frequency shift per sec) and modified M-theory to deduce that the -1/2 in the standard form of Einstein's field equations should be replaced by -1/2 + sqrt((60 ± 10)/4) * 10**-5. This quantum gravitational correction immediately yields Milgrom's MOND as a good approximation — I claim all of MOND's successes for my theory. In my theory, Wolfram's cosmological principle forces a deterministic computational method upon M-theory. Wolfram's cosmological principle is that the maximum physical wavelength equals the Planck length times the Fredkin-Wolfram constant. This radical new principle is, in my opinion, what is needed to replace the contemporary LCDM theory by a modified M-theory that correctly explains most (or perhaps all?) of the puzzles of contemporary cosmology. Seiberg-Witten M-theory with neutralino physics and with D-brane noise as dark energy might be an improved version of contemporary LCDM. As soon as M-theorists realize the problems with the LCDM matter theory, shall we see the revolution in cosmology?

Last edited by David Brown on 03-18-2011 at 07:03 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged