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

Я уверен в одном. Милгром - Кеплер современной космологии.

Модифицированная ньютоновская динамика, ru.wikipedia.org

What does dark energy imply for the foundations of physics? I want to make a few more points concerning string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis versus string theory with the finite nature hypothesis. I have conjectured that 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 -- and also that Einstein's field equations need 3 modifications in connection with my conjectural epistemology. Let us assume that my "64 Particles Hypothesis" is wrong. In that case, the Koide formula might be essential for understanding the foundations of physics but for a different reason than I have conjectured. Square-root(mass) might have some interpretation in terms of area, but for reasons involving supersymmetry and virtual particles involved in the explanation of how dark energy works in terms of the details of quantum gravity.

www.quora.com/What-is-the-relation-between-dark-energy-and-virtual-particle-production-Can-the-expansion-of-the-universe-be-attributed-to-an-increase-in-the-number-of-virtual-particles

If the "64 Particles Hypothesis" is wrong, then I guess that the space roar might be explained in terms of the decay of unknown particles somehow related to supersymmetry.

Seiffert, M., Fixsen, D.J., Kogut, A., Levin, S.M., Limon, M., Lubin, P.M., Mirel, P., Singal, J., Villela, T., Wollack, E. and Wuensche, C.A., 2011. Interpretation of the ARCADE 2 absolute sky brightness measurement. The Astrophysical Journal, 734(1), p.6.

If the "64 Particles Hypothesis" is wrong, then I guess that Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections might have a multiverse explanation with string theory and supersymmetry.

"What Are the Implications of Lestone's Heuristic String Theory?"

Can string theory with supersymmetry be empirically refuted? I don't think so -- D-brane adjustments might provide explanations for any imaginable empirical findings. I doubt that MOND-chameleon particles can be empirically refuted -- the MOND-chameleon particles might cluster around the McGaugh correlation according to bizarre concoctions by clever string theorists. However, in my basic theory, Witten's 11-dimensional model would probably be essential for making the Wolfram automaton pay off. Why does 11^2 divide the order of the monster group?

Thank you for your interest in my ideas. Your remark "... Those MOND-chameleon particles sound fun and I hope you are correct about them ..." from the thread on your essay is not really a good hope from my viewpoint. My basic theory is an interpretation of string theory with the finite nature hypothesis. I say that the 3 main predictions of my theory are: the Fernández-Rañada-Milgrom effect, the Space Roar Profile Prediction and the "64 Particles Hypothesis". There are various threats to the empirical validity of my basic theory -- among these threats are physical evidence for supersymmetry, the existence of magnetic monopoles (in free space), and/or the existence of MOND-chameleon particles. The MOND-chameleon particles would indicate that Milgrom's MOND is an APPARENT phenomenon (somewhat like Coriolis forces or other inertial forces) -- in other words, Milgrom's acceleration law might be a result of ignoring the existence of MOND-chameleon particles. My basic theory implies that MOND is a REAL phenomenon (which occurs as one of the consequences of some gravitons escaping from the boundary of the multiverse into the interior of the multiverse). However, my basic theory is somewhat philosophically distasteful to me (because the theory implies that it is impossible to change the future). Consider 3 questions: Is there a maximum wavelength in the physical universe? Can energy, spacetime, and quantum information be explained in terms of Fredkin-Wolfram underlying the Planck scale? Who is the world's greatest living theoretical physicist?

Is Ed Witten really the world's greatest living theoretical physicist? -- quora.com

Who are some of the world's leading nuclear, particle and high energy physicists alive today?-- quota.com

I think that the world's greatest living theoretical physicist might be Witten or Weinberg -- it's difficult to say. My guess is that Witten's 11-dimensional model is essential for formulating Wolfram's automaton and establishing the empirical validity of string theory with the finite nature hypothesis. 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.

"... soft spot for quotes ..." Many quotations are valuable guides that point out the good way to follow and/or the bad way to avoid. Consider the following quote from Crick's "What Mad Pursuit":

"Theorists almost always become too fond of their own ideas, often simply by living with them for so long."

"What Mad Pursuit" by Francis Crick, page 141

Consider 4 hypotheses: (1) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. (2) The Koide formula is essential for understanding the foundations of physics. (3) Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections is essential for understanding the foundations of physics. (4) My "dark-matter-compensation-constant" idea is wrong. If my basic theory is wrong, then how would I guess? Given the empirical successes of MOND, consider Newton's 3 laws of motion: (± 1st law, ± 2nd law, ± 3rd law), where + means true and - means false. Is string theory the only plausible way to unify quantum field theory and general relativity theory? Let us assume that string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis is correct, Einstein's equivalence principle is 100% correct for dark matter, and the conventional wisdom is correct in endorsing (+ 1st law, + 2nd law, + 3rd law).

In calculating quark masses, the issue of pole mass versus running mass is important.

"Charm Production: Pole Mass or Running Mass?" by Richard D. Ball, 2016

The Higgs field enables the stability of quantum fields.

"How the Higgs Field Works (with math)", profmattstrassler.com

Dark matter particles might have their mass explained in some profoundly new way, such as by a MOND-chameleon-Higgs field. MOND-chameleon particles would, by definition, have variable effective masses depending upon the nearby gravitational acceleration, and the MOND-chameleon-Higgs field would, presumably, share this feature of the hypothetical MOND-chameleon particles. The MOND-chameleon-Higgs field might have some role in maintaining the structure of the multiverse. The Koide formula might have an explanation with square-root(mass) somehow interpreted as area, but with the explanation involving how dark energy interacts with the quantum vacuum. Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections might have an explanation involving interchange of virtual mass-energy among alternate universes, but with conservation of gravitational energy in each alternate universe; Lestone's virtual cross sections might be hidden in the multiverse interstitium. The MOND-chameleon-Higgs field might be somehow related to the multiverse interstitium and might serve as some kind of conduit for the interchange of virtual mass-energy among alternate universes.

Consider some speculators on pole masses, running masses, the string landscape, and Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections.

Depending on the renormalization scheme, running masses differ from pole masses. I say that my 3 most important ideas are:

(1) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology.

"The failures of the standard model of cosmology require a new paradigm" by Kroupa, Pawlowski & Milgrom, 2013

(2) The Koide formula is essential for understanding the foundations of physics.

Koide formula, Wikipedia

(3) Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections is essential for understanding the foundations of physics.

"Possible path for the calculation of the fine structure constant, Los Alamos Report LA-UR-16-22121" by J. P. Lestone, 2016

Is there a way of explaining the 3 preceding ideas in terms of the string landscape?

Assume that Einstein's field equations are correct in terms of quantum averaging over the string landscape. Under the preceding assumption, Milgrom's MOND might be an apparent effect. Assume that the apparent effect of MOND is entirely due to a quantum scalar field with an associated scalar boson with a variable effective mass depending on the nearby gravitational acceleration. Call this field the MOND-chameleon field. In other words, the MOND-concept that there is a problem with Newton's 2nd law of motion results from the (possibly false) assumption that MOND-chameleon particles do not exist. In Einstein's field equations, replace the -1/2 by -1/2 MOND-chameleon-tracking-function. If the MOND-chameleon-tracking-function is roughly constant for the range of gravitational accelerations of MOND-validity, then MOND is recovered. Quantum electrodynamics (QED) has a renormalization scheme. Quantum gravitational theory might have a renormalization scheme in which some particles have a variable effective mass depending upon the nearby gravitational acceleration and/or the nearby energy density. (The reason might be that quantum gravitational effects are physically manifested when gravitational acceleration is immensely high and/or energy density is immensely high.) Assume that MOND-chameleon particles and MOND-Khoury-Weltman-chamelon particles exist. By definition, MOND-Khoury-Weltman particles have variable effective mass depending upon both the nearby gravitational acceleration and the nearby energy density. If Guth inflation can occur in one universe with a specific value CC1 for the cosmological constant and give rise to another universe with a different specific value CC2 for the cosmological constant, then MOND-Khoury-Weltman-chameleon particles might be needed to explain in terms of the string landscape how the variation from CC1 to CC2 took place. How might square-root(mass) be assigned a physical meaning? At the Planck scale there could be tiny shock waves that trade virtual energy among alternate universes in the string landscape. The mass-energy of such a shock wave could be associated with a volume of spacetime depending upon the renormalization scheme for quantum gravity. Thus, square-root(mass) might be associated with area. How might Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections be explained in terms of the string landscape? The alternate universes of the string landscape might be networked together with an interstitium among the alternate universes. The tiny shock waves associated with square-root(mass) might create a higher-dimensional ultra-hot interstitium. Lestone's virtual cross sections might be associated with tiny higher-dimensional bubbles within the interstitium of the string landscape. MOND-chameleon bosons and MOND-Khoury-Weltman bosons might be empirical evidence for the hypothesis that tiny shock waves trade virtual energy among alternate universes in the string landscape and thereby create a higher-dimensional ultra-hot interstitium within the string landscape. In other words, the effects of the tiny shock waves might be physically manifested in the MOND-chameleon field and the MOND-Khoury-Weltman-chameleon field but not directly in the Higgs field or the other quantum fields associated with ordinary matter.

From your essay, 'Decoding the "Intelligence" of the Universe' (page 2), "Our knowledge is grounded in deduction; however, the process leading to the solution is usually not deduction." Let us suppose that we are confronted with an array of problems and some hypotheses or suggestions for possible solutions to the array of problems. Specifically, consider problems related to investing money. According to Warren Buffett, "Draw a circle around the businesses you understand and then eliminate those that fail to qualify on the basis of value, good management and limited exposure to hard times. ... Buy into a company because you want to own it, not because you want the stock to go up."

Warren Buffett, Wikiquote

Is good decision-making more likely to result from intuition, common-sense, and experience rather than rules, high IQ, and deduction? If you are confronted with an alleged fact, should you always ask yourself, "What do people with ulterior motives have to gain or lose from my belief in this alleged fact?"

According to a 2016 publication by Verlinde, on page 13 "We like to emphasize that we have not derived the theory of modified Newtonian dynamics as proposed by Milgrom." On page 43, "In order to explain the observed phenomena we did not postulate the existence of a dark matter particle, nor did we modify the gravitational laws in an adhoc way. Instead we have tried to understand their origin and their mutual relation by taking seriously the theoretical indications coming from string theory and black hole physics that spacetime and gravity are emergent." On page 2 there is a discussion of the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy S = area-of-the-event-horizon / ( 4 * G * hbar) and the Hawking temperature T = hbar * surface-acceleration / (2 * pi).

"Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe" by Erik P. Verlinde, 2016

I want to suggest a way in which Verlinde's theory of emergent gravity might be replaced by a theory of MOND-chameleon particles arising from the string landscape. Assume that there is an hbar-renormalization-alpha-prime-integration scheme for the string landscape. Instead of assuming that gravity is emergent, assume that a quantum gravitational renormalization scheme is emergent. After integrating over the string landscape to eliminate alpha-prime, there might be uncertain-S and uncertain-T, where S is the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy and T is the Hawking temperature; the uncertainty depends upon hbar and the quantum gravitational renormalization scheme which results from the integration of the hbar-renormalization-alpha-prime-integration scheme. This would yield an uncertain-emergent-gravity with an associated quantum gravitational renormalization scheme. Each uncertain-emergent-gravity might be (non-relativistically) slightly different from MOND, but after calculating the quantum-gravitational-running-masses associated with the MOND-chameleon quantum field, there might be statistically significant differences between the general relativistic pole masses and the quantum-gravitational-running-masses for the MOND-chameleon particles, yielding excellent (non-relativistic) agreement with MOND. Thus after the quantum-gravitational approximation over the string landscape, the -1/2 in Einstein's field equations might be replaced by -1/2 MOND-chameleon-tracking-function, where this tracking-function is merely a result of the (possibly false) assumption that MOND-chameleon particles do not exist. Thus, according to this speculation, there might be a way to introduce a new layer of uncertainty into Verlinde's theory of emergence and thereby introduce one (or more?) MOND-chameleon quantum fields that might explain Milgrom's MOND.

Consider 2 questions: Is there a unified theory of mathematics and theoretical physics? Is there a unified theory of mathematics, theoretical physics, and theoretical computer science?

According to Sheldon Glashow, "String theory has had an impact on modern mathematics. ... But in and of itself, it has failed in its primary goal, which is to incorporate what we already know into a consistent theory that explains gravity as well."

NOVA | Elegant Universe | Sheldon Glashow | PBS

I speculate as follows: Bell's theorem is philosophically wrong, but empirically irrefutable. The string landscape is philosophically wrong, but empirically irrefutable. What do I mean by the 2 preceding statements? My guess is that there are 2 basic possibilities for the foundations of physics: string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis or string theory with the finite nature hypothesis. If the finite nature hypothesis is wrong, then my guess is that there is a unified theory of mathematics and theoretical physics, but there is no unified theory of theoretical physics and theoretical computer science. My guess is that constructive string theory can be embedded into nonconstructive string theory which can be embedded into differential geometry algebraic geometry. Mochizuki's IUT might have an analogy in a theory of alternate universes of quantum logics based upon different string vacua. My guess is that Witten's 11-dimensional model is the correct description of the local geometry of the string landscape. However, the string landscape should have a global geometry with a theory of global virtual thermodynamics. The problem is to generalize from a 1st order theory of quantum entanglement in quantum field theory to a 2nd order theory of quantum entanglement in the string landscape. However, there is no empirical data array that describes alternate universes and their structure within the string landscape. If string theory with the finite nature hypothesis is empirically valid then it might be mandatory that there should be theory of the string landscape that explains all known empirical data -- but the explanation might be mathematically awkward and somewhat implausible.

If the string landscape is a physical reality, then I would bet in favor of some version of chameleon particles as an explanation for the empirical successes of Milgrom's MOND. By definition, Khoury-Weltman-chameleon particles are hypothetical particles that have variable effective mass depending upon nearby energy density. What might be an argument in favor of the existence of Khoury-Weltman-chameleon particles? Suppose that a universe with value CC1 for its particular cosmological constant undergoes a Guth-type inflation event. The inflation event might create another universe with a different value CC2 for its newborn cosmological constant. Then there might be a necessity for a Khoury-Weltman-chameleon mechanism that mediates the change from CC1 to CC2.

By definition, MOND-Khoury-Weltman-chameleon particles are hypothetical particles that have variable effective mass depending upon both nearby gravitational acceleration and nearby energy density. Suppose that the equivalence principle is 100% correct. There might be a quantum-gravitational theory that, after applying mathematical procedures based upon the equivalence principle, might yield 3 different types of Feynman diagrams: diagrams for ordinary matter, diagrams for dark matter, and diagrams for dark energy. There might be Feynman diagrams specifically for MOND-chameleon particles and Feynman diagrams specifically for MOND-Khoury-Weltman-chameleon particles.

If the string landscape is a physical reality, then I would bet in favor of some version of inflationary cosmology. Google "alan guth inflationary cosmology youtube" to see more information on this topic.

Let us assume that my basic theory (i.e. string theory with the finite nature hypothesis) is empirically invalid. In that case I would bet on MOND-chameleon particles, Khoury-Weltman-chameleon particles, and MOND-Khoury-Weltman-chameleon particles within the context of the string landscape.

Euclidean geometry generalizes to Riemannian geometry, which provides the mathematical basis for general relativity theory. Presumably, at least in mathematical terms, general relativity theory can be generalized to some version(s) of the string landscape. On the other hand, Euclidean geometry generalizes to algebraic geometry, which in turn generalizes to Grothendieck's more abstract approach to algebraic geometry.

From Wikipedia, "Grothendieck's relative point of view is a heuristic applied in certain abstract mathematical situations, with a rough meaning of taking for consideration families of 'objects' explicitly depending on parameters, as the basic field of study, rather than a single such object. It is named after Alexander Grothendieck, who made extensive use of it in treating foundational aspects of algebraic geometry. Outside that field, it has been influential particularly on category theory and categorical logic. ... Assuming that we don't have a commitment to one 'set theory' (all toposes are in some sense equally set theories for some intuitionistic logic) it is possible to state everything relative to some given set theory that acts as a base topos."

Grothendieck's relative point of view, Wikipedia

My guess is that Grothendieck's relative point of view generalizes to higher conceptual approaches as exemplified by Mochizuki's IUT. In other words, it seems to me that general relativity is somewhat like Grothendieck's relative point of view, and the string landscape is somewhat like Mochizuki's IUT.

I suggest that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle might be generalized to:

standard-deviation-of-position * standard-deviation-of-momentum тЙе (hbar/2) * (string-landscape-factor), where string-landscape-factor = function-F(higher-fractional-dimension-from-M-theory-depending-upon-MOND-Khoury-Weltman-chameleon-particles)/4), where the hypothetical higher-fractional-dimension varies between 4 and 10 and function-F is a real-valued increasing function on the closed interval [1, 2.5] with function-F(1) = 1.

Can Milgrom's MOND be modeled by some theory of the string landscape in which gravitinos are always MOND-Khoury-Weltman-chameleon-particles and mediate Guth's eternal cosmological inflation?

"How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intentions?" Physics deals with time, space, energy, measurement, information, and symmetry. In algebraic geometry, can time and energy be introduced in various ways? What is mathematics? What is the role of mathematics in understanding reality? Is mathematics that part of conscious thought that is precise, logically consistent, and conceptually important? Is there a unified theory of mathematics and theoretical physics? There might be 3 basic approaches to the foundations of mathematics: (1) abstract logic (e.g. Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory and its generalizations); (2) unification of all the branches of mathematics within a unified theory of algebraic geometry, differential geometry. and theoretical physics; (3) understanding mathematics in terms of molecular psychology (i.e. psychology formulated in terms of molecular biology). In terms of string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis, how might big bangs occur? Google "guth eternal inflation". According to Guth ("Eternal inflation and its implications", 2007), "Although the infinity of pocket universes produced by eternal inflation are unobservable, it is argued that eternal inflation has real consequences in terms of the way that predictions are extracted from theoretical models. The ambiguities in defining probabilities in eternally inflating spacetimes are reviewed, with emphasis on the youngness paradox that results from a synchronous gauge regularization technique. Although inflation is generically eternal into the future, it is not eternal into the past: it can be proven under reasonable assumptions that the inflating region must be incomplete in past directions, so some physics other than inflation is needed to describe the past boundary of the inflating region." Is the Koide formula essential for understanding the foundations of physics? Does square-root(mass) have some interpretation as area? In each 4-volume of spacetime, there might be a probability distribution of big bangs spontaneously occurring -- this might link the 4-volume of spacetime with mass-energy.

How might objects, morphisms, and uncertainty principles involving morphisms be combined into a unified theory? Is there a Mochizuki landscape for every nonlinear partial differential equation with an uncertainty principle?

Is Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science" one of the greatest books ever written? Consider 3 possibilities: (1) Wolfram's cosmological automaton is philosophically correct and empirically useful. (2) Wolfram's cosmological automaton is philosophically correct and empirically useless. (3) Wolfram's cosmological automaton is philosophically incorrect and empirically useless. Which of the 3 preceding alternatives would the majority of string theorists choose? My guess is that the string theorists are wrong about the finite nature hypothesis but correct in assuming that they have found the mathematical way to geometrize quantum probability amplitudes so as to unify quantum field theory and general relativity theory. Is the preceding guess wrong? Google "yang-mills and mass gap". The Millennial Problem "Yang-Mills and Mass Gap" might turn to have a solution or to have no solutions. According to Jaffe & Witten (in the official description of the problem), ".. one does not yet have a mathematically complete example of a quantum gauge theory in four-dimensional space-time, nor even a precise definition of quantum gauge theory in four dimensions." I conjecture that if string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis is empirically valid, then the Yang-Mills and Mass Gap Problem has a mathematically satisfactory solution with a mathematically complete example. I also conjecture that if string theory with the finite nature hypothesis is empirically valid, then the Yang-Mills and Mass Gap Problem has an approximate solution but not a satisfactory mathematical solution in a precise axiomatic framework with a mathematically complete example.