Dear Dr. Pavel Kroupa I think the biggest problem with dark matter is that in addition to not having been able to detect it after 40 years of searching, we do not have a mechanism that distributes it both globally and locally, the first to necessarily generate and maintain a universe of galaxies homogeneous and isotropic in all directions to avoid any collapse, and the second to be in the necessary quantities and be able to do the work it claims to do, because as we know, there is a lot quantities of the necessary stops the rotation of the galaxies and if it is small it cannot maintain the galactic structure, so I considered that the hypothesis of dark matter is false, and the real problem arises from the fact that we do not yet know how the universe works.
The density of matter and energy in the Universe is so low that you do not need to consider their net transformations. Matter transforms into energy only in the center of (dying) stars, when black holes merge, and in particle colliders on a planet called Earth. These are a tiny fraction of mass compared to the sparse interstellar medium and dark matter. CMB energy (photons) do not concentrate but dilute and red-shifted over time. So it is more unlikely for them to become matter after their decoupling with the baryonic matter, such that this is not even a concern for structure (galaxy) formation in Cosmology textbooks.
@@zhiqiangyan1554 lets get back to the point. Assumption 2 is just straight up wrong. Therefore whatever conclusion u draw from that assumption can't be trusted. Simple logic. U need to restate assumption 2 in a way that is correct, without impacting the conclusions. Otherwise the rest is just meaningless
@synx6988 There is nothing straight correct in scientific research. You always make assumptions and approximations. Whether it is Newton's theory or relativistic. They are just approximations of the real world. So you are suggesting everything is meaningless?
You don't have to agree with the assumptions of a theory or my argument. I am merely pointing out why these assumptions might be useful to some extent in certain disciplines and scientific practices. If you disagree, there is nothing wrong with your opinion.
“This leaves us now with MOND/Milgromian dynamics …” Nobel laureate Sheldon Glashow has famously said, “String theory is the only game in town.” In the standard form of Einstein’s field equations, replace the -1/2 by -1/2 + dark-matter-compensation-constant. I have suggested that string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis implies dark-matter-compensation-constant = 0 and the Friedmann model is empirically valid, but string theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9 ± .5) * 10^-5 and the Riofrio-Sanejouand model is empirically valid. Am I wrong? What might be plausible hypotheses for string theory with the finite nature hypothesis? Consider the Seven Sagacities of String Theory with the Finite Nature Hypothesis: (1) There is a profound synergy between string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis and string theory with the finite nature hypothesis. (2) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology - on the basis of overwhelming empirical evidence (implying dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^-5) - the hypothesis is that Gravity Probe B ’s 4 ultra-precise gyroscopes worked according to design specifications. (3) The Koide formula is essential for understanding the foundations of physics. (4) Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections is essential for understanding the foundations of physics. (5) The idea of Fernández-Rañada and Tiemblo-Ramos that atomic time is different from astronomical time is correct. (6) There is genius in the ideas of Riofrio, Sanejouand, and Pipino concerning the hypothesis that the speed of light in a perfect vacuum steadily decreases as our universe ages - although, as of early 2021, those three do not understand how to modify Einstein’s field equations. (7) Quantum information reduces to Fredkin-Wolfram information, which is controlled by Wolfram's cosmological automaton in a mathematical structure isomorphic to a 72-dimensional, holographic, digital computer - the monster group and the six pariah groups allow Wolfram’s cosmological automaton to exist.
@@jimsteen911 My fundamental guess is that infinity is a semi-theological concept. String theory with the infinite nature hypothesis might allow mathematical models of any plausible (or implausible) physics - including miracles and cartoon physics. The idea would be to combine D-branes with an infinite bag of mathematical tricks to create models of anything - including all types of gibberish. If string theory with Fredkin's nature hypothesis doesn't work, then my guess is that the fundamental basis of physics shall remain obscure indefinitely.
The anomalous galaxy velocities are due to an unknown variable, but what is the variable? The variable is atomic mass. Allow me to explain. Think of atomic mass as being a product of atomic energies. Consider the possibility that because time dilation is an account of variable atomic activity, that variable atomic activity is an account of variable atomic energy. Variable atomic energy = variable atomic mass Because variable atomic energy/mass corresponds to the gravitational fields, it is a mathematical testable hypothesis. It is entirely falsifiable. Variable atomic mass alters the mass distribution of galaxies and galaxy groups, and therefore the gravitational potential. Furthermore, the reason atomic energy/mass is variable and corresponds to the gravitational environment of space is because atoms acquire the energy from space needed to generate atomic energy/activity/mass. Analogous to how photosynthetic life acquires energy from the sun to drive biological processes. And here's a bombshell. Life evolved structures and processes optimized for efficient energy capture and utilization, and after billions of years of Darwinian evolution life results in a system of units comprised of a nucleus shrouded within a shell and the capacity to bond with each other and build bodies. And Atomic physics shares that same theme for the same reason. Atomic physics and cellular biology are different systems, but their shared structural and behavioral theme is a result of co-vergent evolution, a result of optimization for efficient energy capture. Atoms are extremely special little building blocks. Think about how complex, finely tuned and interactive they are, how biology makes full use of atomic properties and showcases how extremely specialized building blocks atomic units are. Chance creation is not a suitable explanation for the creation of a system as interesting as this. And there's no designer. However, we know of a process with the capacity to generate a system of high complexity, and we have its precedence having generated another system of precisely the same structural and behavioral theme. Atoms are made of energy fields, but why do these energy fields conspire to build such a complex and interactive system such as physics? Darwinian evolution is the answer. Darwinian Universal. What more needs to be said? Except that I can say a hell of a lot more about this than I have here. yeh yeh I know, just another crackpot right? Doesnt matter the good reasoning I provide does it? The big bang theory has no explanatory power whatso ever. Darwinian evolution is rich in explanation, and the Darwinian cosmology that I have begun teasing out is just as rich in explanation as it is in the telling of the origin of life. Ask me about it
Dark energy can be explained with vacuum friction I believe which may remove the need for dark energy. Dark matter on the other hand I think exists and that dark matter is structured vacuum energy (all particles are structure vacuum energy in this view). And a speculative idea I came to think of is that intelligence can be an inherent property of the universe instead of an emergent phenomenon, and so dark matter could behave with vast intelligence that maintains the shape of galaxies for billions of years. Think of all possible strings of information. Some of those strings have intelligent structure. And the strings are platonic, timeless forms, so no need for any external creator or intelligence. Our universe (multiverse) could be the manifestation of one those strings.
There is no dark matter. The universe is not expanding. Red shift to explain expansion is also false. That the CMB exists is a chimera for something else but not the edge. Rotational semi-coherence could be explained by gravitational frame dragging.
"Dark energy is totally not understood ..." Does string theory give a simple explanation for dark energy and dark matter? Consider conjectures (A) & (B): (A) String theory with the infinite nature hypothesis implies gravitational energy is conserved and our universe is expanding. (B) String theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies gravitational energy is not conserved, i.e. dark-matter-compensation-constant is nonzero, and our universe is not expanding, i.e., the observers and their associated reference frames are blue-shifted with respect to the constant radius of our universe. Why are there 6 basic quarks? Answer: The monster group and the 6 pariah quarks allow string theory with the finite nature hypothesis to be equivalent to Wolfram's cosmological automaton. Why are there 3 generations of fermions? Answer: String vibrations are approximately confined to 3 copies of the Leech lattice - this allows Wolfram's cosmological automaton to be equivalent to a 72-dimensional holographic digital computer. Where do the 72 dimensions come from? There are 64 quantum potential particle paths: 36 quarks, 12 leptons, and 16 bosons. There are 6 dimensions for 3 dimensions of linear momentum, 3 dimensions of angular momentum. There is 1 dimension of graviton spin. There is one dimension of non-measurable Fredkin distance. Measurement is a natural process that separates the boundary of the multiverse from the interior of the multiverse. There are a huge, but finite, number of alternate universes on the boundary of the multiverse. The boundary of the multiverse is 71-dimensional. The interior of the multiverse is 72-dimensional . During each Planck-time interval, precisely one unit of Fredkin-Wolfram energy is transferred from the boundary of the multiverse into the interior of the multiverse. Why does dark matter exist? Why does dark energy exist? Dark matter is an effect caused by gravitons that have spin >2. Dark energy is an effect caused by gravitons that have spin < 2. If every graviton had spin 2, then gravitons would be trapped within their measurable universes and Wolfram's cosmological automaton would not have a simple timing mechanism. According to Wolfram, there are 4 or 5 simple rules that axiomatize finite nature and imply empirically valid approximations to quantum field theory and general relativity theory. I say Professor Milgrom of the Weizmann Institute is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology - on the basis of overwhelming empirical evidence. However, Professor Milgrom thinks that I am a crackpot. Why is that? He thinks that the Gravity Probe B science team is correct about their 4 ultra-precise gyroscopes and the slight failure of the 4 gyroscopes due to electrostatic patches. I suggest that the 4 ultra-precise gyroscopes worked correctly and confirmed my hypothesis dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^-5 . I conjecture that string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis implies dark-matter-compensation-constant = 0 and the Friedmann model is empirically valid, but string theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^-5 and the Riofrio-Sanejouand model is empirically valid. Professor Yves-Henri Sanejouand of the Université de Nantes indicates that he independently derived the Riofrio model by studying the same empirical data. I suggest that our universe is not expanding - what is actually happening is that the observers and their associated references are blue-shifted, i.e., shrinking. Thus, the Big Bang needs to be replaced by Wolfram's Reset. Einstein's algebraic causality = string theory with the finite nature hypothesis = Wolfram's cosmological automaton, defined by 4 or 5 simple rules. I need to convince 20 or 30 of the younger string theorists that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. Google "kroupa milgrom" and "fredkin milgrom" for more information." It seems to me that string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis is about 80% correct and 20% incorrect, but string theory with the finite nature hypothesis 100% correct. String theory with the infinite nature hypothesis implies supersymmetry and the string landscape (both wrong), but string theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies Milgrom's MOND, Wolfram's cosmological automaton, no supersymmetry, and no magnetic monopoles. There are 3 corrections to Einstein's field equations: nonzero dark-matter-compensation-constant, Lestone cutoff, and Koide cutoff. Also, the inflaton field needs to be replaced by a deflaton field. Google "seven sagacities of string theory with the finite nature hypothesis". In "The Meaning of Relativity", 5th edition, pages 165-166, Einstein wrote, "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 finite 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 an attempt to find a purely algebraic description of reality." Consider 10 meta-conjectures about string theory: (1) String theory (in some form) is the only mathematically plausible way to geometrize Feynman diagrams in a way compatible with general relativity theory. (2) Supersymmetry (in some form) occurs in nature if and only if nature is infinite. (3) Gravitational energy is conserved if and only if every graviton has spin 2. (Steven Weinberg) (4) For every positive integer n, if n occurs in nature then n+1 occurs in nature. (5) Einstein found the mathematically correct formulation of the equivalence principle. (6) Spacetime is doomed in terms of mathematical symmetries of the string landscape. (7) Based upon string theory, there is a unified theory of mathematics and theoretical physics. (8) Algebraic geometry is theoretical physics with the removal of time and energy. (9) Quantum field theory is a special case of noncommutative geometry. (10) General relativity is a special case of differential geometry. Are meta-conjectures 4 & 6 false? Does string theory with the finite nature hypothesis imply that the Riofrio-Sanejouand model is approximately empirically valid and dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^-5 ? Does quantum information reduce to Fredkin-Wolfram information in Wolfram's cosmological automaton controlled by the monster group and the 6 pariah groups?
@@jimsteen911: According to Witten, "String theory is the only known generalization of quantum field theory that makes sense." "Unravelling string theory", Nature, volume 438, 22/29 December 2005, page 1085 www.ias.edu/sites/default/files/sns/files/Unravelling(1).pdf By cleverly manipulating D-branes, string theorists can probably generate models of any plausible (or implausible) physics. However, string theory with the finite nature hypothesis + essential use of the monster group and the 6 pariah groups seems to imply the success of MOND & the failure of supersymmetry.
@@DavidBrown-om8cvbuddy, string theory is interesting, no doubt. It provides a good test bed for ideas as its been the only theory to successfully contain gravity and particles. Full stop. But it is not a description of our physical universe. It exists in anti de sitter space, postulates an entire range of particles we do not observe and dimensions there is zero evidence for. After decades of the best minds and our greatest institutions, who bought into the string theory pipe dream, we have nothing to show for it. String theory and it’s many counterparts have not produced a single prediction nor does one piece of empirical data support it. A physical theory should not be infinitely more complex than the process it seeks to model. Mathematically, it is a beautiful idea. As a description of our world, it is a failure. In your comments, you mention these ideas of string theory and again with wolfram but they all have things in common: they are useless and wrong. I don’t know if you are young or just an idealist with blinders on but quoting Witten doesn’t somehow change the reality of these ‘theories of everything.’ If you want to understand reality and/or make your mark on fundamental physics, you will not do so following these lines of logic. You must seek simplicity and consistency; thereafter, you have to ask “what is it good for?” I am not a shill or advocate for current cosmological dogma; the data is clear that ΛCDM is dead. I am not familiar with the particular ‘tired light’ model you mentioned but I just want to add that it is clear to we need new ideas. It’s amazing to me how current cosmology has produced a never ending hoard of groupthink high priests preaching the gospel of ΛCDM w/ inflation and BB nucleosynthesis. It’s every prediction has been falsified barring one: deuterium abundances. Kroupa is concise and correct when he says this is a crisis. But make no mistake, string theory is a definitive part of that crisis. It has played a definitive role in the stagnation of physics. This isn’t an opinion; it can be empirically demonstrated. Godspeed my friend.
![Eminem - Tobey (feat. Big Sean & Babytron) [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9xn0OHEZZ8Q/mqdefault.jpg)
Great presentation. Physics is indeed broken.
Kroupa unequivocally trashed LCDM, cosmological principal; it all must go
Dear Dr. Pavel Kroupa
I think the biggest problem with dark matter is that in addition to not having been able to detect it after 40 years of searching, we do not have a mechanism that distributes it both globally and locally, the first to necessarily generate and maintain a universe of galaxies homogeneous and isotropic in all directions to avoid any collapse, and the second to be in the necessary quantities and be able to do the work it claims to do, because as we know, there is a lot
quantities of the necessary stops the rotation of the galaxies and if it is small it cannot maintain the galactic structure, so I considered that the hypothesis of dark matter is false, and the real problem arises from the fact that we do not yet know how the universe works.
did u ever make a follow up to this? I wanna see more
I am only a few seconds in, but assumption 2 is not made by anyone I know. Most agree that matter can be made from energy using e=mc2 formula
The density of matter and energy in the Universe is so low that you do not need to consider their net transformations. Matter transforms into energy only in the center of (dying) stars, when black holes merge, and in particle colliders on a planet called Earth. These are a tiny fraction of mass compared to the sparse interstellar medium and dark matter. CMB energy (photons) do not concentrate but dilute and red-shifted over time. So it is more unlikely for them to become matter after their decoupling with the baryonic matter, such that this is not even a concern for structure (galaxy) formation in Cosmology textbooks.
@@zhiqiangyan1554 lets get back to the point. Assumption 2 is just straight up wrong. Therefore whatever conclusion u draw from that assumption can't be trusted. Simple logic. U need to restate assumption 2 in a way that is correct, without impacting the conclusions. Otherwise the rest is just meaningless
@synx6988 There is nothing straight correct in scientific research. You always make assumptions and approximations. Whether it is Newton's theory or relativistic. They are just approximations of the real world. So you are suggesting everything is meaningless?
You don't have to agree with the assumptions of a theory or my argument. I am merely pointing out why these assumptions might be useful to some extent in certain disciplines and scientific practices. If you disagree, there is nothing wrong with your opinion.
“This leaves us now with MOND/Milgromian dynamics …” Nobel laureate Sheldon Glashow has famously said, “String theory is the only game in town.” In the standard form of Einstein’s field equations, replace the -1/2 by -1/2 + dark-matter-compensation-constant. I have suggested that string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis implies dark-matter-compensation-constant = 0 and the Friedmann model is empirically valid, but string theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9 ± .5) * 10^-5 and the Riofrio-Sanejouand model is empirically valid. Am I wrong?
What might be plausible hypotheses for string theory with the finite nature hypothesis? Consider the Seven Sagacities of String Theory with the Finite Nature Hypothesis: (1) There is a profound synergy between string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis and string theory with the finite nature hypothesis.
(2) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology - on the basis of overwhelming empirical evidence
(implying dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^-5) - the hypothesis is that Gravity Probe B ’s 4 ultra-precise gyroscopes worked according to design specifications.
(3) The Koide formula is essential for understanding the foundations of physics.
(4) Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections is essential for understanding the foundations of physics.
(5) The idea of Fernández-Rañada and Tiemblo-Ramos that atomic time is different from astronomical time is correct.
(6) There is genius in the ideas of Riofrio, Sanejouand, and Pipino concerning the hypothesis that the speed of light in a perfect vacuum steadily decreases as our universe ages - although, as of early 2021, those three do not understand how to modify Einstein’s field equations.
(7) Quantum information reduces to Fredkin-Wolfram information, which is controlled by Wolfram's cosmological automaton in a mathematical structure isomorphic to a 72-dimensional, holographic, digital computer - the monster group and the six pariah groups allow Wolfram’s cosmological automaton to exist.
This is gibberish
You literally just said a bunch of things that don’t go together.
@@jimsteen911 My fundamental guess is that infinity is a semi-theological concept. String theory with the infinite nature hypothesis might allow mathematical models of any plausible (or implausible) physics - including miracles and cartoon physics. The idea would be to combine D-branes with an infinite bag of mathematical tricks to create models of anything - including all types of gibberish. If string theory with Fredkin's nature hypothesis doesn't work, then my guess is that the fundamental basis of physics shall remain obscure indefinitely.
The anomalous galaxy velocities are due to an unknown variable, but what is the variable?
The variable is atomic mass. Allow me to explain.
Think of atomic mass as being a product of atomic energies. Consider the possibility that because time dilation is an account of variable atomic activity, that variable atomic activity is an account of variable atomic energy.
Variable atomic energy = variable atomic mass
Because variable atomic energy/mass corresponds to the gravitational fields, it is a mathematical testable hypothesis. It is entirely falsifiable. Variable atomic mass alters the mass distribution of galaxies and galaxy groups, and therefore the gravitational potential.
Furthermore, the reason atomic energy/mass is variable and corresponds to the gravitational environment of space is because atoms acquire the energy from space needed to generate atomic energy/activity/mass. Analogous to how photosynthetic life acquires energy from the sun to drive biological processes. And here's a bombshell. Life evolved structures and processes optimized for efficient energy capture and utilization, and after billions of years of Darwinian evolution life results in a system of units comprised of a nucleus shrouded within a shell and the capacity to bond with each other and build bodies. And Atomic physics shares that same theme for the same reason. Atomic physics and cellular biology are different systems, but their shared structural and behavioral theme is a result of co-vergent evolution, a result of optimization for efficient energy capture.
Atoms are extremely special little building blocks. Think about how complex, finely tuned and interactive they are, how biology makes full use of atomic properties and showcases how extremely specialized building blocks atomic units are. Chance creation is not a suitable explanation for the creation of a system as interesting as this. And there's no designer. However, we know of a process with the capacity to generate a system of high complexity, and we have its precedence having generated another system of precisely the same structural and behavioral theme.
Atoms are made of energy fields, but why do these energy fields conspire to build such a complex and interactive system such as physics? Darwinian evolution is the answer. Darwinian Universal.
What more needs to be said? Except that I can say a hell of a lot more about this than I have here.
yeh yeh I know, just another crackpot right? Doesnt matter the good reasoning I provide does it? The big bang theory has no explanatory power whatso ever. Darwinian evolution is rich in explanation, and the Darwinian cosmology that I have begun teasing out is just as rich in explanation as it is in the telling of the origin of life. Ask me about it
Dark energy can be explained with vacuum friction I believe which may remove the need for dark energy. Dark matter on the other hand I think exists and that dark matter is structured vacuum energy (all particles are structure vacuum energy in this view). And a speculative idea I came to think of is that intelligence can be an inherent property of the universe instead of an emergent phenomenon, and so dark matter could behave with vast intelligence that maintains the shape of galaxies for billions of years. Think of all possible strings of information. Some of those strings have intelligent structure. And the strings are platonic, timeless forms, so no need for any external creator or intelligence. Our universe (multiverse) could be the manifestation of one those strings.
There is no dark matter. The universe is not expanding. Red shift to explain expansion is also false. That the CMB exists is a chimera for something else but not the edge. Rotational semi-coherence could be explained by gravitational frame dragging.
"Dark energy is totally not understood ..." Does string theory give a simple explanation for dark energy and dark matter? Consider conjectures (A) & (B): (A) String theory with the infinite nature hypothesis implies gravitational energy is conserved and our universe is expanding. (B) String theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies gravitational energy is not conserved, i.e. dark-matter-compensation-constant is nonzero, and our universe is not expanding, i.e., the observers and their associated reference frames are blue-shifted with respect to the constant radius of our universe.
Why are there 6 basic quarks? Answer: The monster group and the 6 pariah quarks allow string theory with the finite nature hypothesis to be equivalent to Wolfram's cosmological automaton. Why are there 3 generations of fermions? Answer: String vibrations are approximately confined to 3 copies of the Leech lattice - this allows Wolfram's cosmological automaton to be equivalent to a 72-dimensional holographic digital computer. Where do the 72 dimensions come from? There are 64 quantum potential particle paths: 36 quarks, 12 leptons, and 16 bosons. There are 6 dimensions for 3 dimensions of linear momentum, 3 dimensions of angular momentum. There is 1 dimension of graviton spin. There is one dimension of non-measurable Fredkin distance. Measurement is a natural process that separates the boundary of the multiverse from the interior of the multiverse. There are a huge, but finite, number of alternate universes on the boundary of the multiverse. The boundary of the multiverse is 71-dimensional. The interior of the multiverse is 72-dimensional . During each Planck-time interval, precisely one unit of Fredkin-Wolfram energy is transferred from the boundary of the multiverse into the interior of the multiverse. Why does dark matter exist? Why does dark energy exist? Dark matter is an effect caused by gravitons that have spin >2. Dark energy is an effect caused by gravitons that have spin < 2. If every graviton had spin 2, then gravitons would be trapped within their measurable universes and Wolfram's cosmological automaton would not have a simple timing mechanism. According to Wolfram, there are 4 or 5 simple rules that axiomatize finite nature and imply empirically valid approximations to quantum field theory and general relativity theory.
I say Professor Milgrom of the Weizmann Institute is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology - on the basis of overwhelming empirical evidence. However, Professor Milgrom thinks that I am a crackpot. Why is that? He thinks that the Gravity Probe B science team is correct about their 4 ultra-precise gyroscopes and the slight failure of the 4 gyroscopes due to electrostatic patches. I suggest that the 4 ultra-precise gyroscopes worked correctly and confirmed my hypothesis dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^-5 . I conjecture that string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis implies dark-matter-compensation-constant = 0 and the Friedmann model is empirically valid, but string theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^-5 and the Riofrio-Sanejouand model is empirically valid. Professor Yves-Henri Sanejouand of the Université de Nantes indicates that he independently derived the Riofrio model by studying the same empirical data. I suggest that our universe is not expanding - what is actually happening is that the observers and their associated references are blue-shifted, i.e., shrinking. Thus, the Big Bang needs to be replaced by Wolfram's Reset. Einstein's algebraic causality = string theory with the finite nature hypothesis = Wolfram's cosmological automaton, defined by 4 or 5 simple rules. I need to convince 20 or 30 of the younger string theorists that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. Google "kroupa milgrom" and "fredkin milgrom" for more information."
It seems to me that string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis is about 80% correct and 20% incorrect, but string theory with the finite nature hypothesis 100% correct. String theory with the infinite nature hypothesis implies supersymmetry and the string landscape (both wrong), but string theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies Milgrom's MOND, Wolfram's cosmological automaton, no supersymmetry, and no magnetic monopoles. There are 3 corrections to Einstein's field equations: nonzero dark-matter-compensation-constant, Lestone cutoff, and Koide cutoff. Also, the inflaton field needs to be replaced by a deflaton field. Google "seven sagacities of string theory with the finite nature hypothesis".
In "The Meaning of Relativity", 5th edition, pages 165-166, Einstein wrote, "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 finite 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 an attempt to find a purely algebraic description of reality."
Consider 10 meta-conjectures about string theory: (1) String theory (in some form) is the only mathematically plausible way to geometrize Feynman diagrams in a way compatible with general relativity theory. (2) Supersymmetry (in some form) occurs in nature if and only if nature is infinite. (3) Gravitational energy is conserved if and only if every graviton has spin 2. (Steven Weinberg) (4) For every positive integer n, if n occurs in nature then n+1 occurs in nature. (5) Einstein found the mathematically correct formulation of the equivalence principle. (6) Spacetime is doomed in terms of mathematical symmetries of the string landscape. (7) Based upon string theory, there is a unified theory of mathematics and theoretical physics. (8) Algebraic geometry is theoretical physics with the removal of time and energy. (9) Quantum field theory is a special case of noncommutative geometry. (10) General relativity is a special case of differential geometry. Are meta-conjectures 4 & 6 false? Does string theory with the finite nature hypothesis imply that the Riofrio-Sanejouand model is approximately empirically valid and dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^-5 ? Does quantum information reduce to Fredkin-Wolfram information in Wolfram's cosmological automaton controlled by the monster group and the 6 pariah groups?
String theory is trash, move on
@@jimsteen911: According to Witten, "String theory is the only known generalization of quantum field theory that makes sense."
"Unravelling string theory", Nature, volume 438, 22/29 December 2005, page 1085
www.ias.edu/sites/default/files/sns/files/Unravelling(1).pdf
By cleverly manipulating D-branes, string theorists can probably generate models of any plausible (or implausible) physics.
However, string theory with the finite nature hypothesis + essential use of the monster group and the 6 pariah groups seems to imply the success of MOND & the failure of supersymmetry.
@@DavidBrown-om8cvbuddy, string theory is interesting, no doubt. It provides a good test bed for ideas as its been the only theory to successfully contain gravity and particles. Full stop.
But it is not a description of our physical universe. It exists in anti de sitter space, postulates an entire range of particles we do not observe and dimensions there is zero evidence for.
After decades of the best minds and our greatest institutions, who bought into the string theory pipe dream, we have nothing to show for it. String theory and it’s many counterparts have not produced a single prediction nor does one piece of empirical data support it. A physical theory should not be infinitely more complex than the process it seeks to model. Mathematically, it is a beautiful idea. As a description of our world, it is a failure. In your comments, you mention these ideas of string theory and again with wolfram but they all have things in common: they are useless and wrong. I don’t know if you are young or just an idealist with blinders on but quoting Witten doesn’t somehow change the reality of these ‘theories of everything.’ If you want to understand reality and/or make your mark on fundamental physics, you will not do so following these lines of logic. You must seek simplicity and consistency; thereafter, you have to ask “what is it good for?”
I am not a shill or advocate for current cosmological dogma; the data is clear that ΛCDM is dead. I am not familiar with the particular ‘tired light’ model you mentioned but I just want to add that it is clear to we need new ideas. It’s amazing to me how current cosmology has produced a never ending hoard of groupthink high priests preaching the gospel of ΛCDM w/ inflation and BB nucleosynthesis. It’s every prediction has been falsified barring one: deuterium abundances. Kroupa is concise and correct when he says this is a crisis. But make no mistake, string theory is a definitive part of that crisis. It has played a definitive role in the stagnation of physics. This isn’t an opinion; it can be empirically demonstrated.
Godspeed my friend.