Consider 3 conjectures: (1) The basic epistemological path of string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis is to explain the foundations of physics by introducing the string landscape and modifying the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. (2) The basic epistemological path of string theory with the finite nature hypothesis is to explain the foundations of physics by introducing Wolfram's cosmological automaton and modifying Einstein's field equations. (3) In the debate between Bohr and Einstein on the foundations of quantum theory, string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis represents Bohr's side of the debate, while string theory with the finite nature hypothesis represents Einstein's side of the debate. Are the 3 preceding conjectures wrong? Is our universe merely a tiny part of an unknown multiverse?
"What we hear about eternal inflation or the string landscape, seems somehow unavoidably to lead to some kind of multiverse. However, it seems to me there is a fundamental problem there. Once of course you have the multiverse, then you can start playing around and try to find probability or getting to the anthropic principle, or whatever. But the point is that the picture is essentially a classical one, and it is difficult to see that if you have many universes, coming essentially with an inflationary state, that there would not be plenty of horizons in this. Now the quantum mechanics of horizons is, I think, perfectly not understood. The simplest example is the black hole, where after all nobody knows really if the problem lies in the singularity or if it lies really already in the horizon. Therefore one seems to be faced with a fundamental problem if one tries to play with the multiverse. Either it is quantum mechanically inconsistent, in which case it is just wrong, or you have to go to a form of quantum mechanics which is not known and which has to come at that level as a different way of understanding things. Of course, I have no answer for this, but I think that problem, conceptually, seems to be in my opinion fundamental". -- François Englert
as quoted on page 309 of "The Theory of the Quantum World: Proceedings of the 25th Solvay Conference on Physics, Brussels, Belgium 19-22 October 2011", Gross, David; Henneaux, Marc; Sevrin, Alexander, eds. 2013
No one expects a fundamental theory of physics to predict (mass of Jupiter)/(mass of Saturn). Do theories of the multiverse attempt to explain what physicists might reasonably expect to predict and what physicists might not reasonably expect to predict?
I say that my 3 most important ideas are: (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. I have suggested 3 modifications to Einstein's field equations: (1) dark-matter-compensation-constant > 0 as an explanation of MOND using the ideas of Fernández-Rañada & Tiemblo-Ramos, (2) Koide cutoff preventing an arbitrarily close approximation to absolute zero, and (3) Lestone cutoff preventing the formation of event horizons. My basic theory (i.e. string theory with the finite nature hypothesis) assumes that dark matter has positive gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy, while dark energy has negative gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy. Let us assume that my basic theory (i.e. string theory with the finite nature hypothesis) is wrong. The Koide formula and Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections might be essential clues for restricting the string landscape. String theorists believe that Einstein's field equations are the correct formulation of the equivalence principle, and I believe that the string theorists are correct on this particular point. My guess is that string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis implies supersymmetry with dark-matter-compensation-constant = 0, while nature with the finite nature hypothesis implies Wolframian pseudo-symmetry with dark-matter-compensation-constant = sqrt((60±10)/4) * 10^-5. Does nature have supersymmetry or Wolframian pseudo-supersymmetry?
"Supersymmetry is a subject of considerable interest among physicists and mathematicians. Not only is it fascinating in its own right, but there is also a growing belief that it may play a fundamental role in particle physics. This belief is based on an important result of Haag, Sohnius, and Lopuszanski, who proved that the supersymmetry algebra is the only graded Lie algebra of symmetries of the S-matrix consistent with relativistic quantum field theory."
"Supersymmetry and Supergravity", 2nd edition, by Julius Wess & Jonathan Bagger
If the equivalence principle is correct for dark matter, then my guess is that dark matter particles in the form of MOND-chameleon particles might be the explanation for dark matter. Should the basic goal of string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis be to replace supersymmetry with MOND-compatible-supersymmetry?
