Milgromian Cosmology, Wolframian Computing, and Primate Consciousness by David Brown

Do the predictive successes of Milgrom's MOdified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) constitute physical evidence that a multiverse exists?

In the standard form of Einstein's field equations, replace the -1/2 by

-1/2 + dark-matter-compensation-constant.

Replace F = G * m1 * m2 / r^2 by F = ((1 - 2 * D-M-C-C)^-1) * G * m1 * m2 / r^2 , where

D-M-C-C = dark-matter-compensation-constant = sqrt((60±10)/4) * 10^-5 (approximately). Let m1 be the mass of a galaxy and let m2 represent the mass of a star in the galaxy.

F = ((1 - 2 * D-M-C-C)^-1) * G * m1 * m2 / r^2 =

m2 * (gravitational-acceleration-of-m2-with-respect-to-m1).

F = G * m1 * m2 / r^2 =

m2 * ( (gravitational-acceleration-of-m2-with-respect-to-m1) * (1 - 2 * D-M-C-C) ). If we break up the zones of gravitational-acceleration into sub-zones of approximately constant gravitational-acceleration then we approximately recover the MONDian law of acceleration.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/421338/meta McGaugh, Stacy S. "The mass discrepancy-acceleration relation: disk mass and the dark matter distribution." The Astrophysical Journal 609, no. 2 (2004): 652.

Is Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections essential for the development of Milgromian cosmology?

John P. Lestone of Los Alamos National Laboratory wrote,

"Introduction to my idea

Before Hawking's work (and others) black-holes were believed to be point objects with only mass, spin, and charge. This is why Einstein (1930s) and others have previously considered the possibility that fundamental particles (like leptons) are quantum micro black holes. Black holes are now believed to have a temperature, entropy, and thus many internal degrees of freedom. Individual black holes are objects amenable to statistical mechanics.

My heretical statement

If black holes (once thought to be point objects) are amenable to statistical mechanics, then why not fundamental particles like leptons? (1988)

Introduction to my idea continued

I consider the possibility of a very strange "unknown" imaginary class of particles, with several unique (bizarre) properties including

(1) My particles have a very high temperature(s).

(2) Despite having a very high temperature, my imaginary particles can not change their rest mass upon the emission of electromagnetic energy. Using known physics my imaginary particles (if isolated) can not emit any "real" photons".

(3) However, I consider the possibility that my imaginary particles can emit and absorb unphysical L=0 "virtual" photons via the time-energy uncertainty principle.

(4) The emission and absorption is controlled by statistical arguments involving their classical temperature and possibility other effective temperatures.

,,," http://permalink.lanl.gov/object/tr?what=info:lanl-repo/lareport/LA-UR-16-22121 J. P. Lestone, "Possible path for the calculation of the fine structure constant", Los Alamos Report LA-UR-16-22121, April 2016, Los Alamos National Laboratory

How might Lestone's bizarre virtual particles with virtual non-zero cross sections be incorporated into a new theory of the foundations of physics that makes empirically valid predictions concerning Milgrom's MOND, the space roar, and the photon underproduction crisis? Assume that string vibrations are confined to 3 copies of the Leech lattice -- such drastic restriction might eliminate the string landscape and enable string theorists to make several new and empirically valid predictions. If nature is finite and digital, the most important mathematical structures involved might the monster group, the 6 pariah groups, the Leech lattice, and the Clebsch diagonal cubic surface. Below the Planck scale, there might be some kind of Fredkin-Wolfram physics in which Fredkin-Wolfram information and symmetries within Wolfram's automaton might allow particle physics with virtual particles to be understood of Fredkin time, Fredkin distance, and Fredkin digit transition. The Fredkin-Wolfram physics would not allow direct measurement but might "explain" quantum micro black holes (with some Lestone-modification to general relativity theory) in terms of "non-measurable" Fredkin heat and Fredkin energy. All of the alternate universes would be cold in terms of Fredkin heat and would occur on the boundary of the multiverse. All of the virtual mass-energy would occur in the interior of the multiverse and would be hot in terms of Fredkin heat. The network Fredkin speed would be big-C, a non-measurable speed that would seem to be incredibly faster than c (the speed of light in a vacuum). Because of dense and incredibly fast networking with the interior of the multiverse, one might think of the multiverse as being flattened out with an incredibly "Fredkin hot" quantum foam in which string vibrations transfer Fredkin-Wolfram information. Massive bosons might consist of 1 vibrating string confined to a 1-sphere. Leptons might consist of 3 vibrating strings confined to a 2-sphere. Quarks might consist of 9 vibrating strings confined to a 3-sphere. Is the preceding merely "techno-babble" that does make sense in terms of physics? Is Milgrom the Kepler of contemporary cosmology? Is it necessary to make 2 modifications to Einstein's field equations to account for the space roar and Milgrom's MOND? Does Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections suggest a Lestone-modification to Einstein's field equations?

I conjecture that paradigm-breaking photons caused by inverse Compton scattering from relativist jets explain the GZK paradox.

http://en/wikipedia.org/wiki/Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin_limit

Consider Einstein's field equations: R(mu,nu) + (-1/2) * g(mu,nu) * R = - κ * T(mu,nu) - Λ * g(mu,nu) -- what might be wrong? Consider the possible correction R(mu,nu) + (-1/2) * g(mu,nu) * R =

- κ * (T(mu,nu) / equivalence-principle-failure-factor) - Λ * g(mu,nu), where

equivalence-principle-failure-factor = (1 - (T(mu,nu)/T(max))^2)^(1/2)

-- if T(max) = +∞ then Einstein's field equations are recovered. I conjecture that the preceding correction might provide a basis for understanding 2 things: (1) how photons can acquire incredibly large kinetic energy from relativistic jets and (2) Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections.

https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0703151 "Physics based calculation of the fine structure constant" by John P. Lestone, 2009

http://permalink.lanl.gov/object/tr?what=info:lanl-repo/lareport/LA-UR-16-27659 Los Alamos Report LA-UR-16-27659 "Semi-classical Electrodynamics: A Short Note" by John Paul Lestone, issued 2016-10-05

http://permalink.lanl.gov/object/tr?what=info:lanl-repo/lareport/LA-UR-16-22121 J. P. Lestone, "Possible path for the calculation of the fine structure constant", Los Alamos Report LA-UR-16-22121, April 2016, Los Alamos National Laboratory

http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217732308027199?journalCode=mpla Lestone, J. P. "Black-Body Photon Clustering by Semiclassical Means." Modern Physics Letters A 23, no. 15 (2008): 1067-1077.

According to Wikipedia, "Several remarkable properties of j have to do with its q-expansion (Fourier series expansion), written as a Laurent series in terms of q = exp(2πiτ), which begins:

j(τ) = 1/q + 744 + 196884 * q + ..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/j-invariant

Note that 6! = 1 * 2 * 3 * 4 * 5 * 6 = 720 and 744 - 720 = 24. Does 744 - 720 = 24 have some profound meaning in the foundations of physics?

Is spacetime 4-dimensional? Is spacetime 26-dimensional? Measurements of spacetime using clocks and surveying instruments demonstrate that spacetime is 4-dimensional. I say that, from one point of view, spacetime is 26-dimensional. 26 dimensions = 1 dimension of matter time + 1 dimension of antimatter time + 24 dimensions of (±, ±, ± )-space. What is (±, ±, ±)-space? For the measurement of space, employ 6 particle beams consisting of 3 electron beams and 3 positron beams. For each dimension of space, employ all 3-tuples of beams selected from the 6 beams. By definition, (±, ±, ±)-space consists of 3 dimensions of ordinary space, each of which is measured in 8 different ways by using all of the possible 3-tuples of the 6 beams. The 24 dimensions of (±, ±, ±)-space reduce to the 3 dimensions of ordinary space because quantum field theory is empirically valid -- however, (±, ±, ±)-space might be useful for representational redundancy (because of the role that the Leech lattice plays in the foundations of physics.)

Note that the order of the monster group is

2^46 * 3^20 * 5^9 * 7^6 * 11^2 * 13^3 * 17 * 19 * 23 * 29 * 31 * 41 * 47 * 59 * 71 --

observe that 2^46 * 3^20 * 5^9 / 720^9 = 9216 = 2 * 72 * 64 -- does the preceding numerology suggest that the number of permutations of 6 basic quarks with 3 quark colors (for both matter and antimatter) might involve matter-time, antimatter-time, a 72-ball, and 64 fundamental particles in free space? (Add the axion, the graviton, and the inflation to the 61 fundamental particles of the Standard Model.)

In my essay for this fqxi contest, I noticed an error in my quotation from Charles Jennings in "Nature Neuroscience" (2000)

" ... it is impressive that so much agreement has been reached on how Where to proceed ..."

Replace the error by "... it is impressive that so much agreement has been reached on how to proceed ..."

Also, I have mentioned in comments in this comments section several mathematical structures, i.e., monster group, pariah groups, Leech lattice, and Clebsch diagonal cubic surface, in connection with my speculations on Milgromian cosmology.

If my speculations on Milgromian cosmology are not examples of self-delusion, then my guess is that the hypergeometric series highlighted by Hosono in equation (1.1) of the following publication

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0404043v4.pdf "Central charges, symplectic forms, and hypergeometric series in local mirror symmetric" by Shinobu Hosono, 2005

might also play an essential role in Milgromian cosmology and the foundations of physics.

I have conjectured 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. I have 2 main guesses: (1) String theory with the infinite nature hypothesis implies supersymmetry and no MOND. (2) String theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies MOND and no supersymmetry. Can string theory explain dark matter, dark energy, inflation, the space roar, and the photon underproduction crisis? It seems to me that string theory provides a means of unifying mathematics, theoretical physics, and theoretical computer science.

Consider the following hierarchy:

infinitary mathematics (Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, Mochizuki's IUT with alternate universes of quantum logics)

/

finitary mathematics (monster group) -- string theory -- theoretical physics (quantum field theory, general relativity theory)

/

quantum computing, computer science, nanotechnology, chemistry, condensed matter physics

/

computer software, AI, robotics, engineering -- molecular psychology -- theoretical biology, molecular biology, biotechnology

/

social sciences, humanities

My guess is that Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections can be justified in terms of the string landscape and in terms of string theory with the finite nature hypothesis (but in substantially different ways).

J. P. Lestone has introduced a highly speculative approach to estimating the fine structure constant in terms of his theory of virtual cross sections. Lestone wrote,

"Introduction to my idea

Before Hawking's work (and others) black-holes were believed to be point objects with only mass, spin, and charge. This is why Einstein (1930s) and others have previously considered the possibility that fundamental particles (like leptons) are quantum micro black holes. Black holes are now believed to have a temperature, entropy, and thus many internal degrees of freedom. Individual black holes are objects amenable to statistical mechanics.

My heretical statement

If black holes (once thought to be point objects) are amenable to statistical mechanics, then why not fundamental particles like leptons? (1988)

Introduction to my idea continued

I consider the possibility of a very strange "unknown" imaginary class of particles, with several unique (bizarre) properties including

(1) My particles have a very high temperature(s).

(2) Despite having a very high temperature, my imaginary particles can not change their rest mass upon the emission of electromagnetic energy. Using known physics my imaginary particles (if isolated) can not emit any "real" photons".

(3) However, I consider the possibility that my imaginary particles can emit and absorb unphysical L=0 "virtual" photons via the time-energy uncertainty principle.

(4) The emission and absorption is controlled by statistical arguments involving their classical temperature and possibly other effective temperatures.

..." http://permalink.lanl.gov/object/tr?what=info:lanl-repo/lareport/LA-UR-16-22121 J. P. Lestone, "Possible path for the calculation of the fine structure constant", Los Alamos Report LA-UR-16-22121, April 2016, Los Alamos National Laboratory

MY GUESS is that there might be a plausible way of justifying (1)-(4) in terms of string theory with the string landscape. Assume a string landscape in which all the alternate universes have Standard Model free parameters that are very close to each other. If there is (in the string landscape) an extremely hot interstitium which is 10-dimensional and super-hot with respect to all the cooler alternate universes, and ALSO most of the virtual energy close to each alternate universe is slightly super-hot but cool enough that it is ALMOST conventional in terms of 4-dimensional spacetime, then it seems to me that (1)-(4) might be justifiable.

Also, in string theory with the finite nature hypothesis, several of Ramanujan's formulas might be crucially important. In particular, I want to mention the Theorems on pages 10 & 12 and equation (11.4) on page 17 of B. C. Berndt's "An overview of Ramanujan's notebooks".

http://www.math.uiuc.edu/~berndt/articles/aachen.pdf

Criticisms from some physicists suggest that they misunderstand my analysis of the Koide formula. For me, the point is NOT that the Koide formula predicts some particular range of values for lepton masses -- the WHOLE POINT is that square-root(mass) has some kind of profound meaning in terms of physics. Conventional wisdom says that there exists a Planck time and a Planck length. Does there exist a Wolfram time and a Wolfram length? In other words, it is true that the wavelengths of photons and gravitons can be arbitrary long or is it true that there exists a maximum wavelength in the physical universe? How do physicists know the answer to the previous question? If there is a maximum length in the physical universe, then should there be a modification of Einstein's field equations (even after quantum averaging)?

According to Einstein's field equations and string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis, our universe expands forever. What is the explanation for the space roar? Does the Koide formula suggest that there might be a modification of Einstein's field equations? Consider Einstein's field equations: R(mu,nu) + (-1/2) * g(mu,nu) * R = - κ * T(mu,nu) - Λ * g(mu,nu) -- what might be wrong? Consider the possible correction R(mu,nu) + (-1/2) * g(mu,nu) * R * (1 - (R(min) / R)^2)^(1/2) = - κ * T(mu,nu) - Λ * g(mu,nu), if R(min) = 0 then Einstein's field equations are recovered.

EINSTEIN'S "THE MEANING OF RELATIVITY", 5TH EDITION, PAGES 83 AND 84

[edit note: for page 83, all except last paragraph of page 83 deleted]

If there is an analogue of Poisson's equation in the general theory of relativity, then this equation must be a tensor equation for the tensor g(mu,nu) of the gravitational potential; the energy tensor of matter must appear on the right-hand side of this equation. On the left-hand side of the equation there must be a differential tensor in the g(mu,nu). It is completely determined by the following three conditions:

1. It may contain no differential coefficients of the g(mu,nu) higher than the second.

2. It must be linear in these second differential coefficients.

3. Its divergence must vanish identically.

The first two of these conditions are naturally taken from Poisson's equation. Since it may be proved mathematically that all such differential tensors can be formed algebraically (i.e. without differentiation) from Riemann's tensor, our tensor must have the form

R(mu,nu) + a g(mu,nu) R

in which R(mu,nu) and R are defined by (88) and (89) [edit note: see page 77]. Further, it may be proved that the third condition requires a to have the value - 1/2 . For the law of the gravitational field we therefore get the equation

(96) R(mu,nu) - (1/2) g(mu,nu) R = - κ * T(mu,nu) .

Equation (95) [edit note: see deleted part of page 83] is a consequence of this equation. κ denotes a constant, which is connected with the Newtonian gravitational constant.

CRITICISM OF EINSTEIN'S ASSUMPTION for R

How do physicists know that there is not some law of nature that forces R ≥ R(min), always and everywhere? The Koide formula suggests that square-root(mass-energy) might somehow be construed as area. If so, the entire universe might undergo an instantaneous (i.e. one Planck time interval) collapse. If the universe collapses when the average temperature of the universe gets too cold, then Einstein was wrong. Therefore, there might be some modification involving R that changes the underlying physics basis for eternal cosmological expansion. Can physicists cite empirical evidence that proves that the preceding speculation is wrong? Theorists might cite theoretical reasons why the proposed modification is wrong, but CAN THEY CITE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE WHICH CLEARLY DISCONFIRMS THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION?

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9129 "Can the Laws of Physics be Unified?"

https://www.quora.com/What-was-Lubos-Motls-greatest-contribution-to-physics

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-hope-of-reformulating-String-Theory-without-supersymmetry

https://www.quora.com/Does-string-theory-require-supersymmetry-Why

It seems to me that I have not done a good job of explaining my viewpoint to string theorists and to critics of string theory.

First of all, who do I think are the 2 best critics of string theory: Answer: Burton Richter & Sheldon Glashow. What is my thinking on the "String Wars"? Google "witten magic mystery and matrix". Consider 5 questions:

1. Is string theory the "only game in town" for unifying quantum field theory and general relativity? I say yes. 2. Does string theory predict general relativity theory? I say yes. 3. Does string theory predict quantum field theory? I say yes. 4. Does string theory predict nonabelian gauge symmetry? I say yes. Does string theory predict supersymmetry? I say that string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis predicts supersymmetry but string theory with the finite nature hypothesis predicts no supersymmetry, i.e. no superpartners at all. What do I say is wrong with the thinking of string theorists? String theorists seem to think that nature is smooth, differential, geometric, and higher dimensional in terms of spatial dimensions. I suggest that their thinking is a kind of half-truth. I suggest that there are precisely 64 basic particles. In terms of the interior of the multiverse, these 64 different particles by means of their independent motions create 64 dimensions of virtual spacetime. Each matter particle has 3 dimensions of linear momentum, 3 dimensions of angular momentum, and 1 dimension of quantum spin in the matter-quantum-spin-dimension. Each antimatter particle has 3 dimensions of linear momentum, 3 dimensions of angular momentum, and 1 dimension of antimatter-quantum-spin-dimension. Altogether, the motions of the particles create a 72-ball of virtual particle motion. This 72-ball somehow allows the monster group and the 6 pariah groups to guide string vibrations on 3 copies of the Leech lattice. This set-up somehow creates a mathematical bridge between the Fredkin-Wolfram network and and an approximation to string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis. In order for string theory with the finite nature hypothesis to work it is necessary for string theory with the infinite nature to "almost work". The most important insight is that string theory the infinite nature hypothesis implies supersymmetry and no MOND, while string theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies MOND and no supersymmetry. I say that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology and that the empirical successes of MOND imply that at least 1 of Newton's 3 laws of motion are wrong. Consider (± 1st law, ± 2nd law, ± 3rd law), where + means true and - means false. Milgrom thinks that the basic problem is with the 2nd law, but I think that the basic problem is with the 3rd law. By introducing a nonzero dark-matter-compensation constant, the result is the mathematically simplest modification of Einstein's field equations. An easy scaling argument then allows the approximate recovery of MOND in the Newtonian approximation. I suggest that Newton and Einstein wrongly assumed that gravitational energy is conserved. I suggest that some gravitons can escape from the boundary of the multiverse (where all direct measurement occurs) into the interior of the multiverse (which has immense "Fredkin heat"). By making 3 different modifications to Einstein's field equations it might be possible to provide physical justifications for Milgrom's MOND, the Koide formula, and Lestone's heuristic string theory. These 3 modifications might provide a new starting point for quantum gravity. Am I completely wrong? Maybe so.

Is Bell's theorem true? Joseph Polchinski wrote, "The second superstring revolution began in 1995. Over a period four years, we discovered dualities of quantum field theories, dualities of string theories, duality between quantum field theories and string theories (that is, AdS/CFT), D-branes, Matrix theory, and quantitative understanding of black hole entropy."

https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.06145 "Why trust a theory? Some further remarks (part 1)" by J. Polchinski

Consider 4 hypotheses. Hypothesis 1. By using clever D-brane adjustments, string theorists can provide mathematical models of any plausible or implausible physics -- even including miracles and cartoon physics. Hypothesis 2. The Copenhagen Interpretation is philosophically wrong but empirically irrefutable because it does not rule out the string landscape. 3. Bell's theorem is philosophically wrong but empirically irrefutable because it does not rule out the string landscape. 4. String theory with the infinite nature hypothesis can explain Milgrom's MOND but in a mathematically awkward way, such as by MOND-chameleon particles or something else. Is Milgrom the Kepler of contemporary cosmology? The empirical successes of MOND imply that at least 1 of Newton's 3 laws of motion is wrong. Consider (± 1st law, ± 2nd law, ± 3 law), where + means true and - means false. My guess is that the 4 most plausible possibilities are: (1) a Verlinde-type in which gravity is emergent and all of the 3 laws fail at the origin of the emergence; (2) a Bekenstein-type theory in which the 2d law fails but the 3rd law is true; (3) a string landscape theory in which all of the 3 laws are true but MOND-compatible, dark matter particles exist; (4) dark-matter-compensation-constant modification of Einstein's field equations. Am I correct on Milgrom's MOND, the Koide formula, and Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections?

Is there some way that Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections might be justified in terms of the string landscape? In the string landscape, let us assume that there is a 10-dimensional ultra-hot interstitium among alternate universes and that, within the string landscape, alternate universes exchange virtual energy if and only if they have "almost exactly" the same virtual vacua. Furthermore let us assume that our own universe is very close to the multiverse average in terms of its free parameters in the Standard Model. Then it might be possible to hide Lestone's imaginary particles with virtual cross sections in the multiverse interstitium of the string landscape. The ultra-hot interstitium might consist entirely of virtual energy in which there are "bubbles" consisting of 2-spheres with 3 vibrating strings confined to the surface of each 2-sphere. The alternate universes might have "point-paricle" leptons that exchange virtual photons with nearby "bubbles" in the interstitium. Approximate curling up of 9 spatial dimensions might allow Lestone's speculative intuitions to have an approximate model in 4-dimensional spacetime. Could the preceding scenario work?

Lestone has introduced a highly speculative approach to estimating the fine structure constant in terms of theory. Lestone wrote,

"Introduction to my idea

Before Hawking's work (and others) black-holes were believed to be point objects with only mass, spin, and charge. This is why Einstein (1930s) and others have previously considered the possibility that fundamental particles (like leptons) are quantum micro black holes. Black holes are now believed to have a temperature, entropy, and thus many internal degrees of freedom. Individual black holes are objects amenable to statistical mechanics.

My heretical statement

If black holes (once thought to be point objects) are amenable to statistical mechanics, then why not fundamental particles like leptons? (1988)

Introduction to my idea continued

I consider the possibility of a very strange "unknown" imaginary class of particles, with several unique (bizarre) properties including

(1) My particles have a very high temperature(s).

(2) Despite having a very high temperature, my imaginary particles can not change their rest mass upon the emission of electromagnetic energy. Using known physics my imaginary particles (if isolated) can not emit any "real" photons".

(3) However, I consider the possibility that my imaginary particles can emit and absorb unphysical L=0 "virtual" photons via the time-energy uncertainty principle.

(4) The emission and absorption is controlled by statistical arguments involving their classical temperature and possibly other effective temperatures.

..." http://permalink.lanl.gov/object/tr?what=info:lanl-repo/lareport/LA-UR-16-22121 J. P. Lestone, "Possible path for the calculation of the fine structure constant", Los Alamos Report LA-UR-16-22121, April 2016, Los Alamos National Laboratory

MY GUESS is that there might be a plausible way of justifying (1)-(4) in terms of string theory with the string landscape. Assume a string landscape in which all the alternate universes have Standard Model free parameters that are very close to each other. If there is (in the string landscape) an extremely hot interstitium which is 10-dimensional and super-hot with respect to all the cooler alternate universes, and ALSO most of the virtual energy close to each alternate universe is slightly super-hot but cool enough that it is ALMOST conventional in terms of 4-dimensional spacetime, then it seems to me that (1)-(4) might be justifiable.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.0333.pdf "String Theory" by David Tong, 2012

http://www-hep.physics.uiowa.edu/~vincent/courses/29276/Vecchia.pdf "The Birth of String Theory" by P. di Vecchia, Lect. Notes Phys., 737, 59-118 (2008)

http://www.sns.ias.edu/witten

"... a proper theoretical framework for the extra term in the uncertainty relation has not yet emerged ..." p. 29 in reference to equation (9) of "Reflections on the Fate of Spacetime" by Edward Witten

http://www.sns.ias.edu/ckfinder/userfiles/files/Reflections(3).pdf

http://www.superstringtheory.com/people/witten.html

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9129 "Can the Laws of Physics be Unified?"

https://www.quora.com/What-was-Lubos-Motls-greatest-contribution-to-physics

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-hope-of-reformulating-String-Theory-without-supersymmetry

https://www.quora.com/Does-string-theory-require-supersymmetry-Why

In string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis, the idea is to say that the equivalence principle is 100% true but the Heisenberg uncertainty principle needs to be modified to include both hbar and alpha-prime. In string theory with the finite nature hypothesis, the idea is to say that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is 100% true but the equivalence principle is completely false for both dark energy and dark matter, i.e., dark energy has negative gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy, while dark matter has positive gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy. According to Fredkin, nature contains neither infinities nor infinitesimals. If t is the time parameter and Fredkin is correct, then our universe does not expand forever because t cannot be arbitrarily large -- thus a Koide-type modification to Einstein's field equations is needed. If Fredkin is correct then energy-density cannot be arbitrarily large and there needs to be a corresponding modification to Einstein's field equations in order to limit the energy-density.

Google "kroupa dark matter" for problems that Kroupa and other astrophysics have identified concerning theories of dark matter particles that obey Newtonian-Einsteinan dynamics. It seems to me that there might be MOND-chameleon particles that have variable effective mass depending upon the nearby gravitational acceleration. I have conjectured 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. Is the Milgrom Denial Hypothesis wrong? Can string theory predict both supersymmetry and MOND-chameleon particles? Suppose that there are two Higgs fields: one Higgs field for ordinary matter and another Higgs field (the MOND-chameleon-Higgs field) for the superpartners of the ordinary particles. Does M-theory rule out a MOND-chameleon-Higgs field? The MOND-chameleon-Higgs field might have some bizarre, unknown correlation with Einstein's curvature scalar R allowing some superpartners to act as MOND-chameleon particles.

Is it possible that Milgrom's acceleration law is wrong? No, because Milgrom, McGaugh, Kroupa, and Pawlowski have elaborated too much empirical evidence in its favor. There are only 2 possibilities: (1) Newtonian-Einsteinian gravitational theory is 100% correct but appears to be significantly wrong for some unknown reason. (2) Newtonian-Einsteinian gravitational really is slightly wrong. How might alternative (1) be a physical reality in terms of string theory and supersymmetry?

"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." -- M. Milgrom

"Dark-Matter Heretic", interview of Mordehai Milgrom by Michael Szpir, Jan-Feb 2003, American Scientist

Can string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis and with supersymmetry explain MOND? I think that the answer is 'yes', but the explanation is mathematically awkward. Assume that MOND-chameleon particles exist. These hypothetical particles would have variable effective mass depending upon the nearby gravitational acceleration. Assume that some of the superpartners of ordinary particles can yield WIMPs that are also MOND-chameleon particles. How might such WIMP-MOND-chameleon particles mimic a violation of the conservation of gravitational energy? In the standard form of Einstein's field equations, replace the -1/2 by -1/2 dark-matter-compensation-function, where this function depends upon unknown parameters. In the Newtonian approximation to Einstein's field equations, chop up gravitational acceleration into zones where the gravitational acceleration is approximately constant. If the dark-matter-compensation-function is approximately constant in the approximation range where MOND applies, then we get an approximation to MOND. Also, the false assumption that the WIMP-MOND-chameleon particles DO NOT have variable effective mass would lead to the false impression that the "dark-matter-compensation-function" is REAL. However, the "dark-matter-compensation-function would be an invalid assumption which IS APPARENTLY CORRECT under the false assumption made concerning the WIMP-MOND-chameleon particles (the false assumption being that these hypothetical particles DO NOT have variable effective mass). How might MOND-chameleon particles be explained? Some of the superpartners of ordinary particles might have a weird, unknown correlation with Einstein's curvature scalar R. Such a weird correlation might arise from a D-brane charge that shows its effects upon MOND-chameleon particles but not other particles. The weird correlation might arise from a Higgs-MOND-chamelon field -- in other words, there might be two Higgs fields -- one that has been discovered and an undiscovered Higgs-MOND-chameleon-field that interacts only with MOND-chameleon particles.

Consider 2 ideas: (1) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. (2) Any empirically valid explanation of dark matter should derive MOND.

Pavel Kroupa - The vast polar structures around the Milky Way and Andromeda, YouTube, 2013

Consider 5 conjectures: (1) Time exists because 2^46 divides the order of the monster group. (2) Space exists because 3^20 divides the order of the monster group. (3) Witten's 11-dimensional model is essential for understanding the physical reason that 11^2 divides the order of the monster group. (4) There are 6 basic quarks because there are 6 pariah groups. (5) If the Gravity Probe science team is correct about the malfunction of their 4 ultra-precise gyroscopes then David Brown is a crackpot.

Should string theorists consider the following possibility? String theory might consist of 2 different forms of strings: ordinary strings and MOND-chameleon strings. The MOND-chameleon strings might be involved in maintaining the structure of the string landscape and might have superpositions among alternate universes.

My guess is that Fredkin is correct in conjecturing that nature contains neither complete infinities nor potential infinities. My guess is that Wolfram's book "A New Kind of Science" is one of the greatest books ever written -- however, it might not be. My guess is that nature is finite and digital if and only if string theory with the finite nature hypothesis can prove itself superior to string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis. It seems to me that the empirical evidence convincingly demonstrates that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. However, string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis might be able to explain Milgrom's MOND in terms of MOND-chameleon particles or in some other way. Your 2015 FQXI essay ... "Digital Physics": An Essay That Uses Poetic License to Discuss A Few Theories in the Movie ... has important questions (1-9, A-F, & 10-13) at the end. Question 2) "Can we logically prove things about our universe without having the technology to probe the very small and very large scales of it?" seems to me to be particularly interesting. My guess it that experts on the foundations of physics might ultimately split into 5 main groups: (1) string theorists who favor the string landscape in some form; (2) string theorists who favor Wolfram's automaton with a multiverse; (3) string theorists who favor Wolfram's automaton without a multiverse; (4) other string theorists; (5) ultra-skeptics concerning string theory. Can the big bang and black holes really be thoroughly understood beyond extremely serious doubts? I doubt that there will ever be enough empirical evidence to pin down the big bang and black holes. It seems to me that there is an extremely important question in your FQXI essay Digital Physics: "Take the World from Another Point of View" at the end "One last question: Do you think that the Kolmogorov Complexity of the Universe up until this point is relatively high or low?" -- this question seems to me to be particularly important. It seems to me that the idea that Kolmogorov complexity can be defined for any mathematical sequence might be somewhat problematic if extrapolated to nature itself. Is Wolfram's principle of computational equivalence empirically valid? The answer to the preceding question seems unclear at this stage of knowledge in physics. In terms of a publicity battle, it seems to me that your film "Digital Physics" is important. You might consider an attempt to create a company that sells stock online for corporate enterprises that create similar films, advertising ventures, or other corporate ventures in areas that interest you. My guess is that my own particular theory of string theory with the finite nature hypothesis is guaranteed fail unless Milgrom's MOND, Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections, and the Koide formula are all successes. The Koide formula might be a success even if my theory fails. Square-root(mass) might be somehow interpreted as area but in a way compatible with Guth's inflation. The interpretation might be in terms of how the "negative pressure" of dark energy acts upon the quantum vacuum. In any, good luck with your cinematic ventures.

Я уверен в одном. Милгром - Кеплер современной космологии.

Модифицированная ньютоновская динамика, ru.wikipedia.org