Are paradigm-breaking photons predicted by Wolfram's ideas?

We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. My own feeling is that it is not crazy enough. – Niels Bohr

    Is Wolfram’s “A New Kind of Science” the first great work of theoretical physics that asserts its own greatness without making any testable predictions?

There are some things so serious that you have to laugh at them. – Niels Bohr

     Is Wolfram a great theoretical physicist rivaling Newton and Einstein? If the multiverse is a Fredkin-Wolfram information process that computes strings, then is the Bekenstein-Hawking radiation result significantly wrong? Are there paradigm-breaking photons that prove that Wolfram is basically correct about the proto-physics underlying standard physics?

   Which is correct: Bekenstein-Hawking radiation or ultra-weird digitized radiation that emerges from Fredkin-Wolfram conglomerate? Is Bekenstein-Hawking the sane alternative with Fredkin-Wolfram the crazy alternative? Is nature crazier than Bekenstein-Hawking radiation?

    What should string theory predict? What is the empirical point of string theory? At a minimum, should string theory explain dark energy, Guth’s inflation, ultra-high-energy cosmic rays, and the precise details of phenomena near black holes? Should string theory give an empirical proof that alternate universes exist?

   Should the basic law of proto-physics be something like the following?

The changes in the Feynman diagrams for an observable universe with respect to the changes in the derivational information process across alternate universes = the observable state of the controlling information process across alternate universes.

   What should string theory ultimately consist of? Should there be: axioms of string theory; completeness assertion for the axioms of string theory; all-inclusive physics theorem; structure theorem for alternate universes?

    Consider 4 hypotheses.

Quantum information is conserved in the string domain.

Quantum information cannot be transmitted from one alternate universe to another alternate universe.

There is an empirically valid M-theoretic duality theorem that unifies gravitational and electromagnetic energy. This might be a corollary to an all-inclusive physics theorem.

There is an empirically valid M-theoretic theorem that provides an analogue of the Casimir-Lifshitz effect. This might be a corollary to a structure theorem for alternate universes.

   Is it essential for string theory to explain dark energy? Does dark energy depend upon the structure of alternate universes as well as the total unification of gravitational and electromagnetic energy?

   Is the fundamental problem with string theory the lack of enough empirical constraint on logical possibilities? Is the precise distribution of paradigm-breaking photons the missing ingredient in string theory? Should string theorists think about Wolfram’s ideas?

No, no, you’re not thinking; you’re just being logical. – Niels Bohr

 

Questions on string theory

    What is the problem with string theory – is it lack of data on ultra-high-energy cosmic rays? Is M-theory the proto-physics that is crazier than quantum mechanics? Are crazy cosmic ray detections the key to crazy string theory?

   Suppose that a superstring exists with probability p at the center of a string tube in an observable universe and exists with probability q at the boundary of a string tube across alternate universes. By using a Feynman diagram 2^nd order approximation to string theory, is it possible to explain dark energy? Could such an explanation lead to an M-theoretic analogue of the Casimir-Lifshitz effect?

   If string theory truly unifies gravitational and electromagnetic energy, then would the unification look like a duality theorem in string mathematics? Would the mathematical duality theorem have an empirical proof in observational physics? Would Guth’s inflation be the gravitational part of the duality theorem? What would be the electromagnetic part of the duality theorem? Could the answer be the crazy emergence of paradigm-breaking photons?

   Are Nambu and Witten like Newton and Einstein but lacking the experimental data to cut down the logical possibilities? Is the multiverse a Fredkin-Wolfram information process that computes strings, or is the multiverse something else? Why don’t string theorists tell people what the physical universe really is?

Are Wolfram's ideas essential for string theory?

… in seeking the laws of nature it is the essence of the art of science to avoid complexity. – Steven Weinberg

The best way to have a good idea is to have a lot of ideas. – Linus Pauling

    Is Wolfram’s “A New Kind of Science” a serious rival to Newton’s “Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica” and to Einstein’s “The Meaning of Relativity”? The vast majority of physicists might answer, “No testable predictions – no serious rivalry.” But what answer does physical reality give? Does the physics of the multiverse have three logically equivalent models: the algebraic, the computational, and the M-theoretic continuum? Is the multiverse essentially a Fredkin-Wolfram information process that performs string theoretic calculations? Does our universe contain paradigm-breaking photons that prove beyond doubt that Wolfram is basically correct?

    Does a big bang come from a quantum vacuum, a black hole, or something else? Is a paradigm-breaking photon an empirical proof that big bangs originate from black holes in alternate universes? In string theory dynamics, is Guth’s inflation the mathematical dual of the emergence of a paradigm-breaking photon?

   Does the multiverse have 3 basic laws? Is the multiverse a Fredkin-Wolfram information process that computes strings? Is it impossible to transmit information from one alternate universe to another alternate universe? Are quantum electrodynamics and general relativity theory valid except at ultra-high energy densities in which superstrings approach observability?

    String theorists have a natural method for computing predictions, or they don’t.  Does the fundamental model of the multiverse consist of Fredkin-Wolfram conglomerate, a Wolfram updating parameter, and mathematical axioms?

   If string theorists have a computational method, then do they have an approximate computational model of the multiverse? If there is no ultra-weird digitization of the event horizon of a black hole, then how can string theorists derive an information process to compute predictions? Does the emergence of paradigm-breaking photons from black holes severely limit the logical possibilities for string theory dynamics?

   What is string theory’s explanation of dark energy? Is the answer simply to develop the mathematics of pre-update Fredkin-Wolfram conglomerate, post-update Fredkin-Wolram conglomerate, and the M-theoretic analogue of the Casimir-Lifshitz effect?

    Just as the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation of quantum physics is causal but non-local, is the ultimate proto-physics both proto-causal and proto-non-local with energy and spacetime merely secondary constructions? Is the ultimate proto-physics vastly weirder and more comprehensible than quantum physics but with the added attraction of the mathematical depth of M-theory?

 

 

Is there a theory of everything (TOE)?

    If there is a theory of everything (TOE), then the fundamental principles of physics should be comprehensible to any sufficiently intelligent, conscious mind. However, if the multiverse contains huge abundances of alternate universes, then why should a physicist be able to understand all the implications of inaccessible evidence?

    Consider 3 hypotheses.

    There is no TOE – instead there is TOSP (theory of scarce predictions). TOSP has three main formulations: an Einstein algebraic system, a Fredkin-Wolfram information process, and a string (or M-theory) dynamics theory. TOSP is an alternate universe theory with very little predictive power.

   Every big bang is created by a black hole in an alternate universe. Such creation occurs if and only if a paradigm-breaking photon is emitted from a black hole. The string (or M-theory) dynamics of the paradigm-breaking photon can explain Guth’s inflation.

    A superstring exists partly in the observable universe but mostly in alternate universes. A superstring exists 100% in the observable universe only in the interior of a black hole.

Newton’s masterpiece is “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy” (1687). He believed in absolute space, time, and motion as well as sensible space, time, and motion, in absolute and relative place. – Albert Avey, “Handbook in the History of Philosophy”

    Newton’s paradigm of physics was wrong in at least two fundamental ways. Newton’s beliefs concerning absolute space, time, and motion are an approximation to Einstein’s general relativistic concepts. Newton’s implicit theory of physical observation is an approximation to the explicit theory of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.

     Is it true that sufficiently near to a black hole, both energy and spacetime break down and mix together into Fredkin-Wolfram conglomerate? Is it true that string theory (or M-theory) needs a bizarre computational basis that uses a Wolfram updating parameter? How shall string theory explain dark energy, dark matter, Guth’s inflation, and ultra-high-energy cosmic rays?

Do the ideas of Fredkin and Wolfram work for string theory?

     What is the most important question that anyone can ask about string theory? What are the puzzling empirical facts that require string theory for their explanation? Should string theory explain dark energy, dark matter, Guth’s inflation, and something else? If general relativity’s model of the event horizon is not entirely correct, then are incredibly energetic photons likely to be scattered randomly throughout galaxies?

Consider 4 speculative ideas.

   At a small enough scale, there is a Fredkin-Wolfram conglomerate with a Wolfram updating parameter and a set of mathematical axioms. This system is the Fredkin-Wolfram information process for the multiverse.

   The event horizon as described by general relativity is incorrect – instead there is an ultra-weird digitization of the event horizon. This digitization causes an ultra-weird turbulence that predicts the existence of ultra-high-energy photons that prove the existence of the Fredkin-Wolfram information process for the multiverse.

    Sufficiently near to black holes, both energy and spacetime break down and mix together into a Fredkin-Wolfram conglomerate. The Wolfram updating parameter involves an alternate universe decomposition that controls how alternate universes change relative to each other in string dynamics.

    The Fredkin-Wolfram information process governs string dynamics by gradually building up energy, space, and time from the ultimate mathematical determinism. Alternate universes and abstract mathematical determinism underlie apparent randomness and quantum weirdness.

One thing that’s kind of inevitable is that very few familiar features of our universe would be immediately visible in the program – I mean there just isn’t room. – Stephen Wolfram

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 theory for the description of reality. But nobody knows how to obtain the basis of such a theory. – Albert Einstein, “The Meaning of Relativity”

     Does any predictive value in quantum gravitational theory result from a failure either by quantum electrodynamics or by general relativity theory? Does string theory need empirical discoveries that limit the logical possibilities?

No question is so difficult to answer as that to which the answer is obvious. – George Bernard Shaw

    Is string theory unable to make predictions without adding one or more physical constants that describe the Fredkin-Wolfram information process for the multiverse? If Einstein is not correct in assuming that there is a purely algebraic theory for the multiverse underlying string theory, then how could there be a computational theory that allows string theory to make predictions?