According to Bílek, Thies, Kroupa, and Famaey, "Observations show that if gravity is to be modified, then the MOND theory is its excellent approximation on galactic scales."

Bílek, Michal, Ingo Thies, Pavel Kroupa, and Benoit Famaey. "Origin Of Tidal Structures In Modified Gravity." arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.07537 (2019)

Do the empirical successes of MOND require a new paradigm for the foundations of physics, including a new concept of time? I have conjectured that there are 3 basic concepts of time: Newtonian, Einsteinian, and Wolframian.

In 2012 Wolfram wrote, "... in the mid-1980s one of the great attractions of string theory was that it seemed to support graviton excitations without the problem of infinities seen in point-particle field theories. But it had other problems, and to avoid these, supersymmetry had to be introduced, leading to the presence of many other particles that have so far not been observed. .... spin networks and spin foams seem to be viewed just as calculational constructs that must be evaluated and added together to get quantum amplitudes - quite different from my idea of associating an explicit evolution history for the universe with the evolution of a network."

SOME HISTORICAL NOTES From: Stephen Wolfram, A New Kind of Science, Notes for Chapter 9: Fundamental Physics, Section: The Phenomenon of Gravity, Page 1054[, wolframscience.com

In 2015 Stephen Wolfram wrote, "One of the key realizations that led to General Relativity 100 years ago was that Euclid's fifth postulate ("parallel lines never cross") might not be true in our actual universe, so that curved space is possible. But if my suspicions about space and the universe are correct, then it means there's actually an even more basic problem in Euclid--with his very first definitions. Because if there's a discrete network "underneath" space, then Euclid's assumptions about points and lines that can exist anywhere in space simply aren't correct."

"What Is Spacetime, Really" by Stephen Wolfram, December 2, 2015, writings.stephenwolfram.com

"How a mathematical point that has no dimension could extend into infinite space of the universe nobody has an answer. From where all the energy of the universe came in the hypothetical explosion also there is no answer. Big Bang cosmology is not falsifiable (Karl Popper), it is not bijective (A.S. Sorli). Maybe 50 years ago it was an interesting idea. Teaching this theory today at universities seems not right. The universe as a system in a non-created permanent dynamic equilibrium is more appropriate and in accordance with all measured data and observation." My guess is that the empirical evidence supports the preceding ideas. I believe that Green, Schwarz, and Witten are more-or-less on the same level as Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga -- however, they fail to realize that Big Bang cosmology contradicts the empirical successes of Milgrom's MOND. Sorli's idea that Big Bang cosmology is not logically bijective is, in my estimation, an important insight.

According to Wikipedia, "In mathematics, a bijection, bijective function, one-to-one correspondence, or invertible function, is a function between the elements of two sets, where each element of one set is paired with exactly one element of the other set, and each element of the other set is paired with exactly one element of the first set."

Bijection, Wikipedia

If fundamental information describes nature precisely, then fundamental information should be bijective from one Planck time interval to another. It seems to me that string theory with the finite nature hypothesis is empirically valid -- although I might have the details wrong.

David. I found your questions about whether nature is infinite or finite and their relationships to the incompleteness theories thought provoking. In my essay "Clarification of Physics--", I introduce a new perspective that starts from a different "beginning" and accounts for the creation of a finite physical multiverse that includes our visible universe. In order to "discover" this natural process, I had to get rid of the basic assumptions and impossibles currently imposed on physics, start from a different beginning and "find" the mathematics hidden in its finite processing and results. I think you will find the essay interesting and I would appreciate your comments.

Hello, here are my thoughts about these strings. Can we affirm that these strings, Branes, fields Waves are the pure essence of our geometries, topologies, Matter and properties in this space time ? no, we cannot affirm and even philosphically speaking, we cannot affirm that we have a 1D main field oscillating permiting to these tsrings t this planck scale to create our physicality. In fact I beleive strongly and it is just my opinion of course that Witten has created a prison now and a fashion. But don t forget this, if the strings are false , so all the philosphy correlated and the works about the geometrisations are not correct simply. Imagine we have coded particles, not points or strings but 3D coded spheres in a superfluid coded aether? I doubt really that we have an infinite energy , a heat and that this energy oscillate and create so the QFT only to create all our physicality. We have probably a deeper logic to all this puzzle, the same about the geometrodynamics am points , or the E8 or Yang mills, in fact imagine if we have coded particles and that they can create all SHAPEs and properties with the Ricci flow, the Hamilton Ricci flow, an assymetric Ricci flow, the heat equation, the topological spaces and euclidian spaces, the lie dervivatives and other mathematical Tools ? it is maybe a solution too to explain all our geometries, topologies and properties of matters. So a thing that I have difficulties to encircle is why these strings are Always utilised, maybe it is just a fashion and that the thinkers had forgotten to consider the coded particles, my model with spheres and spherisation evolution of the universal sphere or future sphere respect also the Waves particles duality in this aether where the space disappears. All this is a philosophical problem I beleive and all we are free to Think like we want but maybe the sciences Community could focus on different roads and not forget that the universe is simple generally. Spherically Yours,

ps I liked your general essay, congrats and good luck for this Contest.

"... I doubt really that we have an infinite energy ... We have probably a deeper logic to all this puzzle ..." Is nature finite and digital? Stephen Wolfram wrote, "I've been thinking about the physics of space and time for a little more than 40 years now. At the beginning, as a young theoretical physicist, I mostly just assumed Einstein's whole mathematical setup of Special and General Relativity--and got on with my work in quantum field theory, cosmology, etc. on that basis.But about 35 years ago, partly inspired by my experiences in creating technology, I began to think more deeply about fundamental issues in theoretical science--and started on my long journey to go beyond traditional mathematical equations and instead use computation and programs as basic models in science. Quite soon I made the basic discovery that even very simple programs can show immensely complex behavior--and over the years I discovered that all sorts of systems could finally be understood in terms of these kinds of programs.Encouraged by this success, I then began to wonder if perhaps the things I'd found might be relevant to that ultimate of scientific questions: the fundamental theory of physics."

"What Is Spacetime, Really?" Stephen Wolfram, Writings, December 2, 2015

When I say "String vibrations are confined to 3 copies of the Leech lattice" , what precisely do I mean? The precise answer would require an entirely successful realization of Wolfram's program -- first write down 4 or 5 simple rules and then prove empirically that Wolfram is correct.

Thanks for sharing and developping, I like how you Think. I understand so your works and what you try to reach. We seacrh answers to explain what we don t know after all.

Wolfram is relevant indeed and a very good mathematician, I consider these maths essential and foundamental when they are utilised with determinism to explain our physics. But I consider the physics like the most important, the maths sometimes can imply confusions in the extrapolations with the infinities, or this or that. Like for example the multiverses or the whormholes, I beleive that they are simply mathematical extrapolations but are not really things real and deterministic, but of course it is just my opinion. So I agree that Wolfram is very relevant the maths important, what I spoke is about these strings, can we be sure that they are foundamental mathenmatical and physical objects at this planck scales and the 1D Cosmic field also ? I don t Think personally, so the branes, D branes, Mtheory, Yang mills or geometrodynamics are just a thought simply not proved. But I can recognise the relevance of mathematical Tools permitting to rank the fields and properties like with the E8 or E8X 8 or others lie groups,I make the same for my theory of spherisation, this optimisation of the universal sphere or future spheres , and the quantum 3D spheres and cosmological 3D spheres and the gravitational coded aether. I cannot affirm that these spheres are the foundamental objects and the same for this aether. For me this aether is sent from the central cosmological sphere and the space disappears when we take specific series having the same number than the cosmological spheres, we decrease the volumes form the central spheres, utilising the primes and increasing the number, oddly we apprroach the Dirac large number, now see that these 3D coded spheres playing between the zero absolute and the planck temperature can rank also these fields because they are in motions and oscillations these spheres , they rotate also, so we have many parameters to consider for the ranking of fields and particles , the densities, the sotings, the synchros, the superimposings, the volumes, the surfaces, the mass, the senses of rotations, the angles, the moments, this and that, we can even consider the poincare conjecture, the Ricci flow, the assynmetric Ricci flow that I have invented, the hopf fibrations, the lie derivatives, the lie groups, the euclidians and topological spaces, and others. It is not a problem to rank our particles fermionic and bosonic if I can say, it is even more simple and more intereting for me considering the numbers of these finite series. The photons are just a fuel so in this line of reasoning, particles permitting simply the electromagnetic forces, the life death,the fact to observe but we have a deeper logic probably to this universe than these photons, that is why I consider this gravitational aether sent from this central cosmological sphere. It is there that this infinite energy transforms and codes the particles, so all is made of particles and not made of fields like in the strings.

The Waves particles duality is also respected because all is in contact due to fact that this space disappears and they oscillate these 3D spheres. So Wolfram works can converge it is not a problem I beleive humbly.

Ps see that this general reasoning can help in technology because we can rank better these particles and fields with these 3D spheres.

About the space time, it is of course correct for our GR , and einstein field equation, but we consider only photons and it is an observation and different interpretation of this gravitation wich is here a curvature of our spacetime at high velocities, different thah Newton where this force is attractive between all mass at lower velocities. Now what I say is simple, if this gravitational aether exists, so we must superimpose a deeper logic to all this, Newton and Einstein, and it is like this that I have reached this quantum gravitation, I have encoded in nuclei different particles and changed the distances because the main codes are farer and the particles encoded also, so the standard model is just emergent, correct but emergent and cannot renormalise and quantize this quantum gravitation. All the thinkers have tried in considering only electromagnetic forces or otehrs and they have not reached it, Connes and his non commutativity, or Verlinde and his entropical gravity, or Lisi and his E8, or Penrose and his twistors, or the loops or this or that, they have not quantized it, there is a problem and I beleive that I found why in all humility, we need to Think beyond the box and add new parameters, like Is I said that this GR , the photons and the strings are a prison for the thinkers.

Like I said I liked your essay and maybe you could consider my theory and works, because it is more simple to explain our unknowns, the universe is so simple generally,m complex in details but so simple generally. These spheres seem foundamental, Poincare and Perelman shall agree I beleive :)

best regards and good luck in this contect

How are undecidability, uncomputability, and unpredictability elated to money and technology? How are money and technology related to string theory? Frank H. Knight wrote, "Economics ... is different from physics in degree, since, though it cannot well be made so exact, yet for special reasons it secures a moderate degree of exactness only at the cost of much greater unreality."

"Risk, uncertainty and profit" by Frank H. Knight, 1921, p. 3

Is string theory essential for understanding reality? My guess is that some version of string theory is the theory of quantum gravity -- beyond a reasonable doubt. However, let us ask: How might string theory be related to economics and technology? Will string theory make quantum field theory somewhat easier to understand and, thereby, demonstrate its value in terms of technology and economics? Is string theory really valid in empirical terms?

According to Richard Szabo, "In conventional quantum field theory, the fundamental objects are mathematical points in spacetime, modeling the elementary point particles of nature. String theory is a rather radical generalization of quantum field theory whereby the fundamental objects are extended, one dimensional lines or loops ... The various elementary particles observed in nature correspond to different vibrational modes of the string. While we cannot see a string (yet) in nature, if we are very far away from it we will be able to see its point-like oscillations, and hence measure the elementary particles that it produces. The main advantage of this description is that while there are many particles, there is only one string. This indicates that strings could serve as a good starting point for a unified field theory of the fundamental interactions."

"An Introduction to String Theory and D-brane Dynamics" by Richard J. Szabo, 2004, p. 1

I have suggested that the string theorists have underestimated Milgrom and failed to understand the value of the ideas of Koide, Lestone, Riofrio, Sanejouand, Pipino, and others. My guess is that strings are entirely virtual and merely approximations generated by Wolfram's cosmological automaton -- am I wrong? Am I wrong in my estimate of dark-matter-compensation-constant? The Gravity Probe B science corrected for alleged imperfections in their 4 ultra-precise gyroscopes -- but are their corrections justified?

Adrian Cho wrote, "... Interactions between those imperfections and ones in the gyroscopes' housing created tiny tugs, and to reach the final precisions, researchers spent 5 years figuring out how to correct for them. Some other scientists aren't sure how much they trust the corrections. Five years ago, Ciufolini notes, Gravity Probe B researchers were reporting uncertainties more than 10 times bigger. Correcting for such large "systematic errors" is tricky business, he says: "I don't know the details, but it seems to me very difficult to get rid of more than 90% of the systematic error." ..."

"At Long Last, Gravity Probe B Satellite Proves Einstein Right" by Adrian Cho, 4 May 2012, Science

************** Physics

**************** в†'в†"

Philosophy в†ђ String theory в†' Quantum computing

**************** в†"в†'

************ Mathematics

Hi ,

I have thought a lot about these MONDs , I have read and studied many pappers about these modifications of our Newtonian mechanics and the opposite reasoning considering this Dark Matter. But after a deeper analyses, philosophicaL, it seems that a cold Dark matter can be very relevant to balance our actual classical physics at this quantum scale and this coosmological scale, I doubt in fact really that we have only photons like main essence to this universe.

I doubt in fact that we had before the physicality, a kind of infinite heat and energy and that this thing osccilates and have created the photons to create our physicality and its topologies, geometries,properties of matters with strings so at this planck scales.

I prefer to consider a deeper logic , a kind of gravitational coded aether sent from the central cosmological sphere , and made of particles , finite series of 3S spheres playing between this zero absolute and this planck temperature, this reasoning permits to consider the photons like just a fuel implying the electromagnetism, the fact to observe, the thermodynamics, the standard model the life Death but it seems that we have a deeper logic to this universe with this DM also, this matter is probably encoded in nuclei also and the relevance is that it permits to balance this heat and can even explain this quantum gravitation, it is what I have made with my equation and to reach this quantum gravitation, I have changed the distances to respect this newtonian mechanic, and I have reached it in all humility in considering these particles encoded weaker than this electromagnetism and photons and I have considered also a serie of quantum BHs farer than our nuclear forces, that creates a fith force also.

I formalise all this puxxle but I must admit that it is not easy. The strings and the photons like main essence of our universe seem a problem to explain the generality and the unknowns, we need I beleive humbly to Think beyond the box and admit that this universe is more complex than we can imagine.

Maybe the strings, the photons and its correlated philosophy have created a kind of prison for the thinkers and now they don t go farer , they consider only the heat and the Waves,oscillations , it is not easy to change a line of reasoning, I know because we are all persuaded lol but after all we must recognise that we are Youngs on Earth and that we know so few, we have just a Little bbit detailed the standard model in some hundreds of years, we have just improved our physics a Little bit.We have an ocean of things to discover still generally and about the details also, Regards

Sorry I write too quickly without rereading, I told 3D spheres, not 3S spheres lol and I have made some errors in English also, I am french speaking, I cannot solve, we cannot re edit and correct. sorry But I beleive that you can understand my general reasoning.

"Maybe the strings, the photons and its correlated philosophy have created a kind of prison for the thinkers ..." There is the possibility that string theory is somewhat wrong or, perhaps, fundamentally wrong.

Freeman Dyson wrote, "What philosophical conclusions should we draw from the abstract style of the superstring theory? We might conclude, as Sir James Jeans concluded long ago, that the Great Architect of the Universe now begins to appear as a Pure Mathematician, and that if we work hard enough at mathematics we shall be able to read his mind. Or we might conclude that our pursuit of abstractions is leading us far away from those parts of the creation which are most interesting from a human point of view. It is too early yet to come to conclusions."

Superstring theory, Wikiquote

Henri Poincaré wrote, "La pensée ne doit jamais se soumettre, ni à un dogme, ni à un parti, ni à une passion, ni à un intérêt, ni à une idée préconçue, ni à quoi que ce soit, si ce n'est aux faits eux-mêmes, parce que, pour elle, se soumettre, ce serait cesser d'être."

Henri Poincaré, Wikiquote

Dear David Brown, I appreciate you for trying to include the neocartesian generalization of modern physics in your knowledge system and comparing it with the Lee Smolin loop quantum theory of gravity.

It should be noted here that in neocartesian physics, it is not length that is quantized, but the construction of the length by mass. The continuity of length arises from the Heisenberg inequality, which indicates that it is impossible to tear out a single point from space, since this requires an infinitely large momentum. So the principle of uncertainty passes into the principle of definiteness of points in space and makes them irrational points that complement the set of rational points to the continuum.

I wish you a deeper understanding of the neocartesian generalization of modern physics and apply your knowledge to deepen it.

Sincerely, Dzhechko Semenovich.

5 days later

Dear David,

Thank you for a very interesting and well-written essay.

While reading your essay I made the following remarks.

I am like you also attracted to the mystery of life and consciousness

When you are describing the Bohr/Einstein discussion and the String theory you clearly give a description of the problems scientist have in finding solutions, it is only discussions.

From the two paths at the end of page two, I agree with number two. But when I say that immediately I have to ask myself is an illusion finite or infinite? (see my Total Simultaneity Interpretation). The answer could on one side be finite because it is just a moment, but, on the other side infinite because it emerges from its infinite source that is eternal timeless), so our reality can be an infinite part of infinity. So I think I just cannot answer my own question.

"Where do we come from...etc" is also one of "questions" I am trying to explain. You say that MOND requires new paradigms and couple this to the subject of the contest. I explain in my essay that MOND is just another interpretation of the many (not a bad one, because bad interpretations do not exist).

You are very well treating all the "missing knowledge" of the reality we are living in, but not giving an interpretation that brings this situation forward.

Each day agents are developing their conscious idea's, that is why I made changes in MY ESSAY (Wilhelmus de Wilde re-uploaded the file Wilde_THE_COMPLETELY_UNKNOW.pdf for the essay entitled "THE COMPLETELY UNKNOWN" on 2020-03-25 10:48:58 UTC.)

I hope that you will spare some time to read and comment on my interpretations. (It seems from the scores I received that you can be or for or against it)....

Thanks

Wilhelmus

    "... treating all the "missing knowledge" of the reality we are living in, but not giving an interpretation that brings this situation forward ..."

    It is true that I have failed to reach even the first step of the three steps of my basic program: (1) Find 4 or 5 simple rules that correctly provide the basis for Wolfram's Simple Rules Conjecture. (2) From the precise statement of the 4 or 5 simple rules, derive empirically satisfactory approximations to quantum field theory and general relativity. (3) Provide empirical verifications of the new predictions from the 4 or 5 simple rules. Is my basic program merely a basically wrong idea?

    According to Wolfram, "The Standard Model is certainly not the end of physics. There are clearly gaps."

    "A Moment for Particle Physics: The End of a 40-Year Story?" by Stephen Wolfram, 5 July 2012, Stephen Wolfram Writings

    Thank you David for your remarks on my thread

    In my perception choices are not made in the past, the Now is an unreachable moment of the future but it is "here" where the choices are made through the partial consciousness of the agent. We are living in the past...

    Thoughts are an agent's. conscious experiences in the emerging flow of time. Thinking is becoming aware of one's consciousness, so is a meditation where we are trying to come free from the troubles that are consuming our pasts, we are trying to come closer to Total Simultaneity, the POINT Zero that contains the ALL.

    I don't fully agree with Steven Weinberg, because the more we "think" we understand the more we understand that this comprehension is only an infinite little part of ALL there is to understand. You become aware of the relativity of human life towards the whole shebang of our universe (micro and macro). It seems then pointless what your thoughts are adding, they are only a sparkle in infinity. But then I remember that an infinite line without a specific point is no more that specific line but becomes two lines. Then I think that even my minor thoughts, my whole life, is NOT wholly pointless, but is needed to bring two infinities together...

    just a thought

    Best regards

    Wilhelmus

    David Brown re-uploaded the file Brown_davidbrownessayfqxi20.pdf for the essay entitled "Gödel versus Wolfram on Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability, plus Bohr versus Einstein on Uncertainty" on 2020-03-27 06:34:00 UTC.

    Hi , I agree totally about the Words of Poincare , I love also his conjecture proved by Perelman. What I find relevant is that these spheres can create all geometries also.

    imagine this with humility, take 3 main systems, series finite of quantum 3d spheres where this space disappears due to a specific serie having the same finite number than our cosmological 3D spheres. so one for the vacuum space , they are coded, one for the photonic fuel, they are coded differently and one for the other fuel a cold dark matter and so when they fuse they create our geometries, topologies, matters ann properties because they are coded simply ,now consider this at this planck scale and utilise these series and superimpose 3 E8 for the geometrisations, utilise the Ricci flow, the poincare conjecture, the Topological and euclidian spaces, an assymetric Ricci flow for the unique things, and the lie derivatives.....all will be easier to explain all our unknowns than just a E8 and geometrodynamics. But for this the thinkers must Think beyond the box.

    E8xE8xE8 in fact with finite series of 3D spheres instead of points or strings.

    the main codes are in this space , the two others are fuel permitting the gravitation and the electromagnetism simply, see the combinations possible , we can create all Shapes, geometries, topologies and the unique things ....

    Regards

    11 days later

    How might Gödel's 1st and 2nd incompleteness theorems be extrapolated?

    "Is our brain smart enough to understand the brain?" by Stanislas Dehaene, 2002, edge.org

    Consider the following idea: No matter how smart you are, you are too stupid to understand how your own brain works.

    Gödel found a mathematical formulation of the following statement: This statement is true but unprovable in the axiomatic system you are using.

    Let us suppose that you have a remarkably precise and sophisticated computer simulation of the molecular mechanisms of your own brain. There might be a complicated line of computer code that encodes the following: This statement is necessary for you to completely understand how your own brain works, and this statement is too complicated for you to understand.

    Dear David,

    You give good thoughts to David Spergel and Rebecca Goldstein:

    "Both dark matter and dark energy require extensions to our current understanding of particle physics or point toward a breakdown of general relativity on cosmological scales."

    "The necessary incompleteness of even our formal systems of thought demonstrates that there is no nonshifting foundation on which any system rests."

    To overcome the crisis of understanding in the philosophical basis of fundamental science, it is necessary to call for help the paradigm of the world (Universum) as a whole (holistic generating process). This step is pushed not only by the crisis in the foundations of science, but above all by the modern Information Revolution and the problem of understanding the nature of information, its place in the scientific picture of the world, and therefore the nature of the "laws of Nature". Quantum theory and General Relativity are parametric (phenomenological, operationalistic) theories without an ontological basification (justification). Also, and "string theory". It is necessary to "dig" with an extremely sharp "Occam's razor" to the most remote meaningful ontological depths -- absolute forms of the existence of matter (absolute states). The time has come to introduce the Ontological standard for justification (basification) theories that claim to be called "fundamental". Today the motto is relevant for physics: "Physics, do not be afraid of metaphysics and dialectics!"

    Mathematics is the "language of Nature." But the centennial problem of justification (substantiation, basification)) mathematics, and therefore knowledge in general, remains unsolved. Radical dialectic and ontological ideas are needed to overcome the crisis of understanding in the philosophical (ontological) basis of fundamental science. Physicists, mathematicians, information workers, poets and musicians must have a single picture of the world. A good conclusion was made by the philosopher Pavel Florensky: "We repeat: worldunderstanding is spaceunderstanding."

    David! Do you support the Big Bang hypothesis?

    Please also see my dialectic and ontological ideas .

    With kind regards, Vladimir

      What are the implications of Milgrom's MOND for the scientific and philosophical foundations of undecidability, uncomputability, and unpredictability? What is relativistic MOND?

      In 2019 Banik and Kroupa suggested 2 tests of (non-relativistic) MOND:

      Banik, Indranil, and Pavel Kroupa. "Directly testing gravity with Proxima Centauri." Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 487, no. 2 (2019): 1653-1661.

      "Directly testing gravity with Proxima Centauri", arXiv preprint

      Banik, Indranil, and Pavel Kroupa. "Testing gravity with interstellar precursor missions." Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 487, no. 2 (2019): 2665-2672.

      "Testing gravity with interstellar precursor missions", arXiv preprint