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

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.

Have string theorists underestimated Milgrom? Is MOND the basis for a conceptual revolution in the foundations of physics? I say that the world's 3 greatest living scientists are James D. Watson, Sydney Brenner, and Professor Milgrom of the Weizmann Institute. Is string theory on the right track?

According to Wikipedia, "The string theory landscape refers to the huge number of possible false vacua in string theory. ... The large number of possibilities arises from different choices of Calabi-Yau manifolds and different values of generalized magnetic fluxes over different homology cycles."

String theory landscape, Wikipedia

According to Witten, "Plenty of leading physicists -- prominent examples being Steve Weinberg and Martin Rees -- have taken the acceleration of the cosmic expansion seriously as a hint that a landscape interpretation of the universe may be correct."

blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physics-titan-still-thinks-string-theory-is-on-the-right-track/ 22 September 2014 interview of Edward Witten by John Horgan

It seems to me that MOND has an explanation as either (1) an apparent effect somehow resulting from unknown effects of the string landscape or (2) a real effect indicating that Newtonian-Einsteinian gravitational theory is significantly wrong. The empirical successes of MOND suggest a re-evaluation of Newton's 3 laws of motion. Consider (± 1st law, ± 2nd law, ± 3rd law), where + means true and - means false. The string theorists are in favor of (+ 1st law, + 2nd law, + 3rd law). Is it possible that gravitinos are MOND-Khoury-Weltman-chameleon particles that adequately explain MOND? If the concepts of energy and spacetime break down near the Planck scale, then the fundamental geometric tensor and the energy tensor might need to be replaced by higher mathematical abstractions involving the string landscape. Let ZFC represent Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice. According to the results of Gödel, in first order logic there are infinitely propositions that are true but unprovable in ZFC (provided that ZF is consistent). In the string theory landscape are there infinitely many interesting empirical propositions that are true but inherently untestable? Suppose that there are three axioms, Axiom1, Axiom2, and Axiom3, that are independent of each other and relevant to the string theory landscape. Then ZFC with different combinations of choices from {± Axiom1, ± Axiom2, ± Axiom3} might yield alternate approaches to the foundations of physics. There might be 3 parameters, Parameter1, Parameter2, and Parameter3, that vary over different physical quantities and yield instantiations model-ZFC(Parameter1,Parameter2,Parameter3) within some landscape-like geometric structure. Instead of taking ultraproducts over a fixed model of ZFC, there might a Mochizuki theory of Mochizuki-ultraproducts generating different models of the string landscape with the generating process involving geometric variation over some Mochizuki-structure with varying models of ZFC. There might be infinitely many ways of introducing time and energy into algebraic geometry that are compatible with the empirical facts discovered by physicists. Various ways of introducing time and energy into algebraic geometry might be part of a unified theory of algebraic geometry, differential geometry, and string theory. Could the string landscape evolve in different ways according to esoteric mathematical axioms involving the foundations of set theory? Does a continuum of physical possibilities necessarily involve questions in the foundations of set theory?

What is randomness? Why does randomness exist? Are success and failure always the results of a mixture of causality and randomness? Do people always run the risk of being destroyed by their own failures or being destroyed by their own successes? Why is success a danger? A method, strategy, or lifestyle that leads to success might create overconfidence, complacency, or unanticipated dangers. Some dangers are determined but some dangers are random. Do those who adopt a consumer lifestyle run the risk of being destroyed by their own luxuries? Do those who adopt a technological lifestyle run the risk of being destroyed by their own gizmos? Do those who adopt a successful theory run the risk of being deceived by their own assumptions within the successful theory? The string theorists believe that Einstein's field equations are the correct mathematical formulation of the equivalence principle -- here I agree. The string theories believe that dark matter obeys the equivalence principle -- but I conjecture that dark matter has positive gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy. Fredkin has conjectured that there are no local sources of randomness. If quantum information is the fundamental basis of physics, then randomness might be an irreducible mystery. If quantum information can be reduced to Fredkin-Wolfram information, then randomness might be the irreducible ignorance generated by Wolfram's cosmological automation. If Fredkin and Wolfram are basically wrong, then Witten's 11-dimensional model might be a description of the local geometry of the string landscape. If Fredkin and Wolfram are basically correct, then Witten's 11-dimensional model might be the key to understanding why 11^2 divides the order of the monster group and how the monster group and the 6 pariah groups explain string theory with the finite nature hypothesis.

"Is quantum mechanics the ultimate description of nature? ... Is space-time doomed?" -- David Gross

"The Future of Physics", David Gross, CERN, 26 January 2005

"Sheldon Glashow ... He received his Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1959, and went on to win the Nobel Prize for his work on unification of the fundamental forces of nature. He is a skeptic of string theory due to its lack of experimental support, going so far as to resign from the faculty at Harvard University in 2000 due to the physics department's focus on string theory research."

String Theory: A Controversy in Ten Dimensions, mit.edu

"Ed is unique -- the kind of person who comes along once a century." -- John Schwarz, concerning Edward Witten

Is string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis philosophically wrong but empirically irrefutable? Does string theory with the finite nature hypothesis lead to success in explaining dark matter? Is infinity beyond measurement and therefore not really part of empirical science? Is measurement a natural process that separates the boundary of the multiverse from the interior of the multiverse?

How can string theory explain dark matter? If the Heisenberg uncertainty principle needs to be replaced by a new uncertainty principle involving both hbar and alpha-prime, then I make 2 guesses: the 1st guess is that MOND-chameleon particles exist; the 2nd guess is that there is a quantum theory of gravity in which MOND-chameleon articles have pole masses in general relativity theory and running masses in quantum gravitational theory -- the running masses would depend on the nearby gravitational acceleration for the MOND-chameleon particles. However, I conjecture that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle fails only when the concept of measurement fails. Consider 3 conjectures: (1) Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science" is one of the greatest books ever written. (2) There are 6 basic quarks because there are 6 pariah groups. (3) The monster group and the 6 pariah groups describe how quark tracking develops from Fredkin-Wolfram information below the Planck scale. What might be the physical meaning of the monster group? 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

Monster group, wikipedia.org

Does 11^2 represent a storage area for information associated with Witten's 11-dimensional model? Does 7^6 represent 6 basic quarks each with 3 dimensions of linear momentum, 3 dimensions of angular momentum, and 1 dimension of quantum spin? Do the prime numbers 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 41, 47, 59, and 71 represent 9 spatial dimensions in the superstring model with 9 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time? If a prime p divides the order of the monster group, then does nature contain a profound symmetry involving p and Fredkin-Wolfram information below the Planck scale? Does Wolfram's cosmological automaton use the monster group and the 6 pariah groups to distribute Fredkin-Wolfram information yielding an approximation to quantum information? Does string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis provide a mathematically awkward explanation of MOND and the space roar?

"... What insights are to be gained from category-theoretic, informational, geometric and operational approaches to formulating quantum theory? ... How do different concepts of probability contribute to interpreting quantum theory?"

"The Oxford Questions on the foundations of physics" (p. 3) by G. A. D. Briggs, J. N. Butterfield, A. Zeilinger, 2013, arxiv.org

Does nature require probability theory with the infinite nature hypothesis? Is there a unique mathematical method for unifying mathematics, theoretical physics, and theoretical computer science? Are Milgrom's MOND, the Koide formula, and Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections essential for understanding the foundations of physics?

QUOTED FROM THE NY TIMES (published Jan. 1988):

Isidor I. Rabi, the Nobel laureate in physics who died Jan. 11, was once asked, ''Why did you become a scientist, rather than a doctor or lawyer or businessman, like the other immigrant kids in your neighborhood?'' ...

The question was posed to Dr. Rabi by his friend and mine, Arthur Sackler, himself a multitalented genius, who, sadly, also passed away recently. Dr. Rabi's answer, as reported by Dr. Sackler, was profound: ''My mother made me a scientist without ever intending it. Every other Jewish mother in Brooklyn would ask her child after school: 'So? Did you learn anything today?' But not my mother. She always asked me a different question. 'Izzy,' she would say, 'did you ask a good question today?' That difference - asking good questions -made me become a scientist!'' ...

'Izzy, Did You Ask a Good Question Today?', Letter to the Editor by Donald Sheff, NY Times, published 19 January 1988

Fredkin has conjectured that infinities, infinitesimals, perfectly continuous variables, and local sources of randomness do not occur in nature -- is Fredkin correct and how might his ideas be tested? Are there 6 basic quarks because there are 6 pariah groups? Does time exist because 2^46 divides the order of the monster group? Does space exist because 3^20 divides the order of the monster group? Is Milgrom's MOND 100% compatible with string theory and supersymmetry?

I conjecture that there might be a way of making MOND 100% compatible with general relativity theory as follows: Assume that there exist ± alternate-universe-charges (AUCs). Assume that gravitons have + AUCs and gravitinos have - AUCs in our universe, and there exist gravitons with - AUCs and gravitinos with + AUCs in alternate universes. My guess is that there might be a way of using AUCs to create a string theoretical model in which gravitinos are MOND-chameleon particles that have variable effective mass depending upon nearby gravitational acceleration.

"How can quantum gravity help explain the origin of the universe?" -- Edward Witten

Strings 2000 Conference - Physics Problems for the Next Millennium, theory.caltech.edu/~preskill

Is there a unified theory of mathematics and theoretical physics? Is mathematics that part of human thought which is precise, logically consistent, and fundamentally important? My guess is that, over the next 20 years, string theory will split into 2 distinct disciplines: (1) stringy physics which attempts to make empirically valid predictions and to explain the foundations of physics and (2) stringy mathematics which attempts to prove mathematical theorems with motivations from stringy physics. I make the 4 following conjectures: (1) The Copenhagen Interpretation is philosophically wrong but empirically irrefutable. (2) Bell's theorem is philosophically wrong but empirically irrefutable. (3) Supersymmetry is philosophically wrong but empirically irrefutable. (4) The string landscape is philosophically wrong but empirically irrefutable. What do I mean by "philosophically wrong"? In terms of empiricism, a theory might be, at the most fundamental level, actually wrong but able to generate mathematical structures that (although mathematically awkward) can model any plausible empirical reality. The Copenhagen Interpretation is remarkably successful in pragmatic terms but does not specify in mathematically precise terms what measurement is, what the fundamental cosmological structure is, how many degrees of freedom there are in nature, or how many fundamentally distinct quantum fields exist. Consider the "Yang-Mills Existence and Mass Gap" problem as specified among the 7 Millennium Prize Problems.

Yamg-Mills existence and mass gap, Wikipedia

If the Yang-Mills Existence and Mass Gap Problem has a positive solution in terms of existence then I would bet in favor of string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis. If not, then I would bet in favor of string theory with the finite nature hypothesis. My guess is that, at the Planck scale, the concepts of energy and spacetime break down in terms of 2 possibilities: (1) higher mathematics (i.e. the mathematical symmetries of the string landscape) or (2) lower mathematics (i.e. Wolfram's cosmological automaton). Note that I have suggested 3 modifications to Einstein's field equation: (1) a modification corresponding to the alleged Fernández-Rañada-Milgrom effect; (2) a modification corresponding to the Koide formula and the explanation of the space roar; and (3) a modification corresponding to Lestone's heuristic string theory. Am I completely wrong? Perhaps so -- I suggest that there are 2 main possibilities: (1) string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis and modification of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle or (2) string theory with the finite nature hypothesis and modification of Einstein's field equations in a way compatible with Milgrom's MOND.

If, at the most fundamental level, string theory occurs in nature as Calabi-Yau manifolds and curling up of extra spatial dimensions, then my guess is that Witten is the Newton-Einstein of contemporary cosmology. If, at the most fundamental level, string theory occurs in nature as finite digital approximations to Fredkin-Wolfram information somehow connected with the Leech lattice, then my guess is that Witten is not the Newton-Einstein of contemporary cosmology.

Calabi-Yau manifold, Wikipedia

Leech lattice, Wikipedia

Have string theorists underestimated Stephen Wolfram?

Stephen Wolfram received a PhD in physics from Caltech in 1979 when he was 20 years old.

Stephen Wolfram, Wikipedia

Consider Wolfram's Simple Rules Hypothesis: There exist 4 or 5 simple rules that completely specify Wolfram's cosmological automaton. These 4 or 5 simple rules yield empirically valid approximations to quantum field theory and general relativity theory. Is the preceding hypothesis false? I say that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. I make the 2 following conjectures: (1) If string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis is empirically valid, then Witten is the Newton-Einstein of contemporary cosmology and MOND-chameleon particles exist. (2) If string theory with the finite nature hypothesis is empirically valid, then the person most responsible for proving Wolfram's Simple Rules Hypothesis would be the Newton-Einstein of contemporary cosmology. Are the 2 preceding conjectures wrong? 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. Is possible that the preceding 3 ideas are wrong? I say that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology on the basis of empirical evidence which now exists. I am unsure about the Koide formula and Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections. If the Koide formula and/or Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections are not important in physics, then my guess is that my basic theory is totally wrong. On the other hand, my basic theory might be totally wrong and yet Koide and Lestone might be correct. If string theory and the infinite nature hypothesis are empirically valid, then my guess is that MOND-chameleon particles play an important role in maintaining the structure of the multiverse (which would consist of a Markov branching process understood in terms of the Copenhagen Interpretation). There might be a multiverse interstitium in which quantum information is exchanged among alternate universes (but the exchange would be at the Planck scale and incapable of sending information from one alternate universe to another alternate universe). The multiverse interstitium would be higher dimensional and ultra-hot.

Lestone has suggested that "electromagnetism is generated by the exchange of virtual Hawking radiation between elementary particles with properties that resemble black holes."

"Possible path for the calculation of the fine structure constant, Los Alamos Report LA-UR-16-22121" by John P. Lestone. 4 April 2016, Los Alamos National Laboratory

Suppose that my basic theory (string theory with the finite nature hypothesis) is correct. My guess is that string theory is a bridge between Wolfram's cosmological automaton and empirical predictions. Wolfram's automaton might simulate a multiverse interstitium in which the Koide formula and Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections are consequences of how (hypothetical) MOND-chameleon particles are essential for maintaining the structure of the multiverse. The (hypothetical) MOND-chameleon particles would be based on supersymmetry; furthermore, taking the limits to infinity of all of the wavelengths of superpartners of ordinary particles would yield an approximation to Wolframian pseudo-supersymmetry.

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?

"One can give good reasons why reality cannot at all be represented by a continuous field. From the quantum phenomena it appears to follow with certainty that a finite system of energy can be completely described by a finite set of numbers (quantum numbers). This does not seem to be in accordance with a continuum theory, and must lead to find a purely algebraic theory for the description of reality. But nobody knows how to obtain the basis of such a theory." -- Albert Einstein

"The Meaning of Relativity", 5th edition, pages 165-166

"The object of all science, whether natural science or psychology, is to co-ordinate our experiences and to bring them into a logical system." -- Albert Einstein

"The Meaning of Relativity", 6th edition, page 1

Empirical findings have validated quantum field theory and general relativity theory, but, as yet, physicists are not agreed upon how these two theories might be unified into a logical system. What might be wrong with general relativity theory? Does our universe expand for an infinite duration of time?

According to Edward Fredkin, infinities, infinitesimal, perfectly continuous variables, and local sources of randomness are figments of the imagination that never occur in nature. Is Fredkin correct? I have introduced 3 speculative modifications to Einstein's field equations: (1) dark-matter-compensation-constant = sqrt((60±10)/4) * 10^-5, (2) Koide cutoff, and (3) Lestone cutoff.

I say that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. I say that the Gravity Probe B science team misinterpreted their own experiment. I conjecture that the Koide cutoff explains the space roar. I conjecture that the Lestone cutoff might explain the discrepancies in the measurements of the Hubble constant. What do I mean by the "Lestone cutoff"?

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 + dark-matter-compensation-constant) * g(mu,nu) * R * (1 - (R(min) / R)^2)^(1/2) =

- 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 dark-matter-compensation-constant = 0, R(min) = 0, and T(max) = +∞ then Einstein's field equations are recovered. For the sake of argument, assume that dark-matter-compensation-constant = 0 and that R(min) = 0 but T(max) is some very large pure number -- I call the T(max) modification the "Lestone cutoff". However, my ideas on the Koide cutoff, the Lestone cutoff, and the dark-matter-compensation-constant might be empirically wrong. Perhaps, the Gravity Probe B science team is correct about the malfunctioning of the 4 ultra-precise gyroscopes. In any case, I say that the empirical evidence shows that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. Is Milgrom's MOND an essential clue for those in search of a theory of quantum gravity?

According to Stacy McGaugh: Either:

(1) Most of the Mass in the Universe is Invisible (Dark Matter), or

(2) Dynamical Laws must be Modified (MOND).

The Basic Issue, The MOND Pages, Stacy McGaugh

Consider 5 conjectures:

(1) The empirical successes of MOND indicate that supersymmetry needs to be replaced by MOND-compatible supersymmetry.

(2) Gravitons and gravitinos have D-brane charges that constitute empirical evidence that D-branes and alternate universes influence gravitational accelerations.

(3) Gravitinos are MOND-chameleon particles that have variable effective mass depending upon nearby gravitational acceleration.

(4) For galactic dynamics, most of the mass-energy of dark matter particles has the form of MOND-chameleon particles that have variable effective mass depending upon nearby gravitational acceleration. The empirical successes of MOND can be explained as follows: Replace the -1/2 in the standard form of Einstein's field by a term which represents an apparent (but not real) failure of general relativity theory. The apparent failure is caused by ignoring the existence of MOND-chameleon particles. In other words, replace the -1/2 by -1/2 + MOND-chameleon-tracking-function -- how might this explain MOND? In the range of validity of MOND, assume that MOND-chameleon-tracking-function is roughly a constant = sqrt((60±10)/4) * 10^-5 . Outside the range of validity of MOND, assume that MOND-chameleon-tracking function is roughly = 0 except for an unspecified transition range. An easy scaling argument shows that this amounts to boosting the gravitational redshift in such a way that there appears to be a universal acceleration constant as postulated in MOND.

(5) It is possible to mathematically define a D-brane corresponding to any plausible MOND-chameleon-tracking function.

For more thoughts on the foundations of physics and dark matter, see:

Triton Station: A Blog about the Science and Sociology of Cosmology and Dark Matter, Stacy McGaugh

"... ultimately we're just physical entities, governed by the laws of physics. So an obvious question is what those laws ultimately are. And, you know, the world view that I've developed has a lot to say about that too. Ultimately the real question is: if our universe is governed by definite rules, it must in effect be one of those programs that's out there in the computational universe. Now it could be a huge program--like a giant operating system. Or it could be a tiny program--just a few lines of code.

In the past, it would have seemed inconceivable that all the richness of our universe could be generated just by a few simple lines of code. But once we've seen what's possible, and what's out there in the computational universe, it's a whole different story. I won't get into this in detail here. It's a big topic. But suffice it to say that if the universe can really be represented by a few simple lines of code, then it's inevitable that that code must operate at a very low level. Below, for example, our current notions of space, and time, and quantum mechanics, and so on." -- Stephen Wolfram

Imagining the Future with a New Kind of Science--Stephen Wolfram, 18 October 2011

"Why is space-time doomed? There are many reasons, among which: In string theory we can change the dimension of space-time by changing the strength of the string force. Thus, the so-called II-A string theory, which semi-classically describes closed strings moving in ten-dimensional flat space for very weak coupling is dual for strong coupling to a theory, called M-theory, that at low energies is described by eleven-dimensional supergravity. By increasing the string coupling we can grow an extra dimension. How can the spatial continuum be fundamental if the number of spatial dimensions can be so changed?" -- David Gross

"Einstein and the Search for Unification", p. 11, in ''The legacy of Albert Einstein: a collection of essays in celebration of the year of physics'' (2007)

My guess is that, at the Planck scale, the concepts of energy and spacetime need to be replaced by higher mathematics (i.e. mathematical symmetries of the string landscape) or by lower mathematics (i.e. Wolfram's cosmological automaton). How can Wolfram's cosmological automaton be precisely defined? My guess is that string theory with the finite nature hypothesis needs to be embedded into string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis. Wolframian pseudo-supersymmetry might need to be defined as a limit of MOND-compatible-supersymmetry as the energies of all the undiscovered superpartners approach zero.

According to Wikipedia, "In computing, an emulator is hardware or software that enables one computer system (called the host) to behave like another computer system (called the guest). An emulator typically enables the host system to run software or use peripheral devices designed for the guest system."

Emulator, Wikipedia

My guess is that Wolfram's cosmological automaton might be physically understood as an emulator of a constructive theory of a Markov branching process for a multiverse defined in terms of the string landscape with MOND-compatible-supersymmetry. In terms of string theory with the string landscape and the multiverse hypothesis, during each Planck time interval, each particular alternate universe would branch into an infinity of new alternate universes. Are the empirical successes of MOND a form of evidence that D-branes (and/or fivebrane solitons) are physical realities?

Consider 5 conjectures:

(1) MOND's empirical successes indicate that supersymmetry needs to be replaced by MOND-compatible-supersymmetry.

(2) Gravitons and gravitinos have D-brane charges that constitute empirical evidence that D-branes and alternate universes influence gravitational accelerations.

(3) Gravitinos are MOND-chameleon particles that have variable effective mass depending upon nearby gravitational acceleration. The MOND-chameleon property somehow represents how D-branes maintain the structure of the multiverse.

(4) For galactic dynamics, most of the mass-energy of dark matter particles has the form of MOND-chameleon particles that have variable effective mass depending upon nearby gravitational acceleration. MOND's empirical successes can be explained as follows: Replace the -1/2 in the standard form of Einstein's field by a term which represents an apparent (but not real) failure of general relativity theory. The apparent failure is caused by ignoring the existence of MOND-chameleon particles. In other words, replace the -1/2 by -1/2 + MOND-chameleon-tracking-function -- how might this explain MOND? In the range of validity of MOND, assume that MOND-chameleon-tracking-function is roughly a constant = sqrt((60±10)/4) * 10^-5 . Outside the range of validity of MOND, assume that MOND-chameleon-tracking function is roughly = 0 except for an unspecified transition range. An easy scaling argument shows that this amounts to boosting the gravitational redshift in such a way that there appears to be a universal acceleration constant as postulated in MOND.

(5) It is possible to mathematically define a D-brane corresponding to any plausible MOND-chameleon-tracking function.

For more thoughts on the foundations of physics and dark matter, see:

Triton Station: A Blog about the Science and Sociology of Cosmology and Dark Matter, Stacy McGaugh