David,
Very provocative in posing the questions. Also good reference articles and abstracts listing for the inquiring minds. Mond is an 'outsiders' pursuit, but does ask us to discover a correct question. I have amused myself from time to time with the notion that in the future all those solutions^500 might be seen as a naively obtained inventory of radial fluctuations of energy seeking equilibrium as an ideal spherical rest mass. Good luck, for what its worth my rating is as an amateur. jrc
Dear Mr. Brown,
There is a simple explanation for "dark matter" Real matter is not shaded. Although real matter appears to us to consist of solid, liquid and gaseous elements that is because as far as we can tell, we are constituted of solid, liquid and gaseous content. If that is true, then all reality must consist of real solid, liquid and gaseous incorporation. Real empty space cannot exist. Only matter exists.
Regards,
Joe Fisher
David,
A pretty good read with lots of thoughtful questions. The answers can only be had through experiment and observation as you note in some of the comments.
Best Regards,
Gary Simpson
Gary,
Thank you for your comments on my essay. In your essay "Calculus - Revision 2.0" page 7, you wrote, "It is only through the comparison between prediction and experiment that we can hope to understand." Physics without prediction is unsatisfactory. String theorists need to find a way to eliminate, or at least drastically constrain, the string landscape. My guess is that Milgrom's MOND is the key to eliminating the string landscape and to making decisive, testable predictions with string theory. String theorists need to incorporate MOND into string theory. Consider the problem of attempting to prove, under plausible physical hypotheses, that the Anderson-Campbell-Ekelund-Ellis-Jordan flyby anomaly formula is approximately equivalent to replacing the -1/2 in the standard form of Einstein's field equations by -1/2 dark-matter-compensation-constant.
Anyone interested in the foundations of physics might find to worthwhile to consider the preceding problem.
-- David Brown
string theory has no bijective epistemological correspondence with physical world. It is a pure fantasy.
Amrit Sorli (Foundations Of Physics Institute): In your essay "Application of Bijective Function of Set Theory in Physics" you wrote, "Mathematics is the useful tool of physics. However out of pure mathematical laws we cannot deduce physical laws." The logical possibilities seem to be vastly greater than the physical possibilities. My guess is that vibrating strings at or below the Planck scale are a reality, in some sense. According to Burton Richter, "... Progress in physics almost always is made by simplification. ... To the Landscape Gardeners I would say calculate the probabilities of alternative universes, and if ours does not come out with a large probability while all others with content far from ours come out with negligible probability, you have no useful contribution to make to physics. ..."
I maintain the Milgrom Denial Hypothesis: The main problem with string theory is that string theorists fail to realize that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. Why do I maintain this hypothesis? String theory seems to be the mathematics of quantum gravity, while Milgrom, McGaugh, Kroupa, Pawlowski, and others have empirical evidence that gravity is Milgromian, whatever that might turn to be in terms of string theory. If string theory is merely a mathematical fantasy it has certainly been a productive fantasy for mathematics. The mathematical unification of quantum field theory and general relativity theory might, by logical necessity, be some form of string theory or M-theory.
Dear David,
I just read your essay and the refreshing ideas proposed. Your essay should score highly even though to your question: Does dark matter exist? My answer is Yes, it does and not only that it exists right there inside your office and laboratory. If you are inclined to discuss the proof, we can take this further.
Best regards,
Akinbo
Please note: I share your skepticism about string theory.
Dear Akinbo,
In your essay "Does the division of extension mean the same in mathematics as it does in physics?" (page 5), there is the statement: "It appears that without the addition of some further ingredient into our physics, there are subtle nuances to what we call discrete and how it can be fundamentally expressed." I guess that, more specifically, one or more new physical hypotheses need to be introduced into string theory in order to explain dark matter and the space roar. My quantum theory of gravity has several basic assumptions: Dark matter is virtual mass-energy that has positive gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy. Dark energy is virtual mass-energy that has negative gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy. Nature is finite and digital, more-or-less as described in Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science", Chapter 9. The Koide formula, Lestone's heuristic, and 't Hooft's superstring determinism are necessary for understanding the foundations of physics. The Fernández-Rañada-Milgrom Effect, the Space Roar Profile Prediction, and the 64 Particles Hypothesis are empirically valid. According to the Gravity Probe B science team, my quantum theory of gravity has already been refuted. (I dispute the Gravity Probe B science team's interpretation of their own experiment.) In any case, I affirm the Milgrom Denial Hypothesis: The main problem with string theory is that string theorists fail to realize that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. Why do I affirm this? The mathematic evidence supports string theory, and the empirical evidence supports Milgrom's acceleration law (according to the work of Milgrom, McGaugh, Kroupa, and Pawlowski).
-- D. Brown
Dear David Brown,
I am so somewhat surprised that you link the question of dark matter with string theory so strongly. MOND was proposed as a way to account for the flat rotation curves of stars in galaxies, and is not committed to any particular account of the nature or origin of the dark matter. And cosmological observations of gravitational lensing effects have become much more exact and sophisticated since 1983. The Bullet Cluster has been cited as fairly direct evidence for dark matter. Do you have results that show how to account for these observations without dark matter, and just with a modification of the gravitational dynamics?
Regards,
Tim Maudlin
Sorry: I meant that the dark matter explanation of the rotation, as opposed to MOND, is not committed to any particular account of the dark matter, and in particular not to string theory.
Dear Tim Maudlin,
In your essay "How Mathematics Meets the World" there is the statement, "The puzzle is why the language of mathematics should be such an effective tool for describing the physical world." My guess is that the solution to the puzzle is: Nature is finite and digital with string vibrations confined to 3 copies of the Leech lattice. Why is string theory likely to be 'the only game in town'? Google "mystery magic matrix witten". What is the empirical evidence for MOND? Google "kroupa pawlowski milgrom new paradigm". Does the Bullet Cluster show that dark matter particles exist? See:
Milgrom's perspective on the Bullet Cluster, The MOND Pages
What is the empirical evidence for the Fernández-Rañada-Milgrom effect? See:
Does the Rañada-Milgrom Effect Explain the Flyby Anomaly?
My thinking is that the empirical evidence favors MOND, the mathematical evidence favors string theory (or M-theory), and the Fernández-Rañada-Milgrom effect is likely to be the string theoretical interpretation of MOND. I claim that an easy scaling argument demonstrates that the alleged effect is approximately equivalent to MOND. If in the standard form of Einstein's field equations the -1/2 is replaced by -1/2 + dark-matter-compensation-constant, gravitational lensing works approximately as well merely because the dark-matter-compensation-constant is very small in comparison to 1/2.
You've taken a controversial subject of choice.
Thumbs Up!
Sincerely,
Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan
Dear Sir,
We have discussed relativity critically in our essay. Since GR is also an inverse square theory, if MOND is correct, GR would also need modification. But for this modified versions to work, some sort of unseen or "dark" presence is a must, which looks a lot like dark matter. It won't be described by particles in the way that dark matter is described - it may be described in a more wavelike form or a more field-like form. In other words, MOND can do away with dark matter but cannot describe the universe simply as the product of a tweaked Einsteinian gravity acting on the mass we can see. It modifies gravity, but through the backdoor it introduces extra fields, which mean that the distinction between dark matter and modified gravity isn't very clear. In a paper "No Evidence for a Dark Matter Disk within 4 kpc From the Galactic Plane" (http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.1289) the authors note that their findings directly contradict the predictions of MOND.
The energy "uncertainty" introduced in quantum theory combines with the mass-energy equivalence of special relativity to allow the creation of particle/anti-particle pairs by quantum fluctuations when the theories are merged. As a result there is no self-consistent theory which generalizes the simple, one-particle Schrödinger equation into a relativistic quantum wave equation. QED began not with a single relativistic particle, but with a relativistic classical field theory, such as Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism. This classical field theory was then "quantized" in the usual way and the resulting quantum field theory is claimed to be a combination of quantum mechanics and relativity. However, this theory is inherently a many-body theory with the quanta of the normal modes of the classical field having all the properties of physical particles. The resulting many-particle theory can be relatively easily handled if the particles are heavy on the energy scale of interest or if the underlying field theory is essentially linear. Such is the case for atomic physics where the electron-volt energy scale for atomic binding is about a million times smaller than the energy required to create an electron positron pair and where the Maxwell theory of the photon field is essentially linear.
However, the situation is completely reversed for the theory of the quarks and gluons. While the natural energy scale of these particles, the proton, meson, etc. is on the order of hundreds of millions of electron volts, the quark masses are about one hundred times smaller. Likewise, the gluons are said to be quanta of a Yang-Mills field which obeys highly non-linear field equations. As a result, strong interaction physics has no known analytical approach and numerical methods are said to be the only possibility for making predictions from first principles and developing a fundamental understanding of the theory. In QCD, the non-linearities in the theory have dramatic physical effects. One coherent, non-linear effect of the gluons is to "confine" both the quarks and gluons so that none of these particles can be found directly as excitations of the vacuum. Likewise, a continuous "chiral symmetry", normally exhibited by a theory of light quarks, is broken by the condensation of chirally oriented quark/anti-quark pairs in the vacuum. The resulting physics of QCD is thus entirely different from what one would expect from the underlying theory, with the interaction effects having a dominant influence.
There is an urgent need to rewrite physics.
Regards,
basudeba
Dear Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan:
In your essay "Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics", you state: "The puranic view asserts that the universe is created, destroyed, and re-created in an eternally repetitive series of cycles." My theory assumes that the preceding idea is basically correct but my theory is based upon Wolfram's atheistic, materialistic theory as expounded in "A New Kind of Science" (see NKS Forum, Applied NKS). However, according to the Space Probe B science team, my theory has already been ruled out. (If the 4 ultra-precise gyroscopes malfunctioned in the manner suggested by the Space Probe B science team, then I agree that my theory is wrong.) In any case, I think that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology (on the basis of empirical evidence accumulated by Milgrom, McGaugh, Kroupa, Pawlowski, and others). What MOND really means is unclear even to Milgrom.
-- D. Brown
Dear Basudeba Mishra,
In your essay "Reasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics", you state "The validity of a physical statement is judged by its correspondence to reality." Judging whether a physical theory corresponds to empirical reality depends upon the fairness of the empirical tests. I claim that the string theorists fail to realize that the empirical game is rigged against MOND (by vested interests in dark matter particles). According to Milgrom, "The MOND Paradigm", 2008, page 7 (http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.3133) "Disc galaxies are predicted to exhibit a disc mass discrepancy, as well as the spheroidal one that is found for any mass. In other words, when MOND is interpreted as DM we should deduce a disc component of DM as well as a spheroidal one ..." The publication "No evidence for a dark matter disk within 4 kpc of the galactic plane" by C. Moni Bidin, G. Carraro, A. Méndez, and W. F. van AltenaI puts forward a model based upon 6 assumptions (pages 5 & 6): "I Steady state. The thick disk is in equilibrium with the Galactic potential, as expected for anold stellar population. Therefore, all temporal derivatives are set to zero. II Locally flat rotation curve. The rotation curve is assumed flat at the solar Galactocentricdistance. III No net radial or vertical stellar flux. The mean radial and vertical velocity components are zero, while the rotational component shows a non-null lag ... IV Exponential radial dispersion profiles. ... V Vertical constancy of scale lengths. ..." The assumption of a locally flat rotation curve needs to be explained by DM, MOND, or some other (as yet) unverified theory because Newton-Einstein gravitational theory does not predict a locally flat rotation curve. To interpret MOND as dark matter particles that obey the equivalence principle either does not work or requires some drastic new hypothesis, so that "a disc component of DM" does not really mean in MOND what "a disc component of DM" means in cold dark matter theory. There is a pressing need for a relativistically precise version of MOND (WHICH MATCHES THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE). I conjecture that anyone who wants to fully understand MOND needs to explain the space roar and the photon underproduction crisis.
-- D. Brown
David Brown,
Nice work on your essay. Short and sweet but you obviously put a lot of thought into it. Most of these essays are very thought provoking but some are hard to read. I went a different route and wrote what I consider a more entertaining twist - sort of a blend of Knights of the Round Table and Lord of the Rings (See Doctors of the Ring - The Power of Merlin the Mathematician to Transform Chaos into Consciousness). It is based on a model that I am trying to get published, which I posted at http://vixra.org/abs/1402.0045 called the space-time-motion model. I invite you to read it and let me know what you think (email to stjohntheodore@gmail.com). Of course, I also invite you to read and rate my essay if you get the chance.
Respectfully,
Ted St. John
Ted St. John,
In your essay "Doctors of the Ring - the Power of Merlin the Mathematician to Transform Chaos into Consciousness", you state: "... some admit that they don't really understand what time actually is. ... The problem with trying to answer the question why is there only one dimension of time is: How can we be so certain that there is only one dimension of time if we don't even know what it is? True, it only takes one number to describe time, but not because it is a one-dimensional entity; it's because everyone agreed upon a single time standard in order to describe motion." Fernández-Rañada and Tiemblo-Ramos suggested that atomic time might be different from astronomical time -- I say that atomic time is guaranteed to be different from astronomical time because the work of Milgrom, McGaugh, Kroupa, and Pawlowski shows that some revision is needed in the current paradigm of cosmology. The physicists have agreed upon a single time standard based upon empirical findings, quantum field theory, and general theory relativity -- their time standard well works amazingly well for the most part. However, Milgrom's MOND, the space roar, and the photon underproduction crisis demonstrate that something is wrong somewhere in physicists' current understanding of the foundations of physics. -- D.B.
I liked the approach, however a cohesive relationship was not put forth.
Dear Mary Ann Slaby,
In your essay "What is the Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics?", you wrote: "The mysterious connection between physics and mathematics resides in the calculus developed by Newton and Leibniz." Riemannian geometry generalizes calculus, and presumably the non-commutative geometry of string theory is the generalization of Riemannian geometry that works for quantum gravitational theory. I have a scheme for unifying MOND with string theory, but according to the Gravity Probe B science team my plan has already been empirically refuted. However, my guess is that the 4 ultra-precise gyroscopes worked correctly and confirmed the Fernández-Rañada-Milgrom effect. My basic idea is as follows: (1) Assume string vibrations are confined to 3 copies of the Leech lattice. (2) Assume that nature is finite and digital; the maximum physical wavelength is the Planck length times the Fredkin-Wolfram constant. For some ideas underlying (2) google "use of mathematics by richard hamming" and "nks chapter 9". In the Standard Model of particle physics there are 36 quarks with 18 matter/antimatter pairs and with 3 quark colors so that one might say there are 6 basic quarks. My guess is that the 6 basic quarks each have 4 dimensions of uncertainty so that there are 24 dimension of quantum uncertainty, 1 dimension of matter time, and 1 dimension of antimatter time, giving 26 dimensions for bosonic string theory. String vibrations might have 3 energy-density levels (low, medium, and high) so that string vibrations occur in 3 copies of the Leech lattice. The 3 copies of the Leech lattice allow 64 particle-path dimensions, with 3 dimensions of linear momentum, 3 dimensions of angular momentum, 1 dimension of matter time, and 1 dimension of antimatter time. Wolfram's automaton uses Fredkin-Wolfram information below the Planck scale to create approximations of energy, spacetime, and string theory. All measurement occurs on the boundary of the multiverse, which is 72-dimensional. The boundary of the multiverse is divided up into pairs of matter/antimatter universes, each having 71 dimensions. The explanation for dark matter and dark energy is that gravitons have a nonzero probability of escaping from a measurable universe into the interior of the multiverse. When a graviton escapes from the universe, dark matter string vibrations have to somehow compensate for the dark energy string vibrations. When the average temperature of the universe becomes sufficiently cold, the entire universe undergoes an instantaneous collapse. All the universes in the multiverse expand and collapse in a process that takes about 81.6 ± 1.7 billion years from initial big bang to collapse. According to Wolfram, there are 4 or 5 simple rules for Wolfram's automaton that can generate adequate approximations to quantum field theory and general relativity theory. If my scheme is to work, then the Koide formula and Lestone's heuristic string theory probably need to be valid physics.
Dear David Brown,
I claim I am doing 'independent' research in theoretical physics. My few papers are available at vixra. When I learned from your reply to Philip Gibbs that you love 'crackpot' ideas, I thought it will be good to go through your essay. You have put forth some relevant questions.
I consider Dark matter a myth. What I propose is finite gravity with a speed dependent G. The present G is actually the G of Earth for its present speed.; it can be theoretically deduced from 'G' of electrons. The universe as a whole has a certain G which increases with expansion; the present G of the universe is 1.4194x10-3. Using this G, the present Earth- Moon distance can be accurately predicted. What do you think? A crackpot idea! Visit my site finitenesstheory.com for more details.
Kindly go through my essay A physicalist interpretation of the relation between Physics and Mathematics.
