Quantum Gravity and String Theory

   

Does Each Superstring Have 24 D-Brane Charges?

Authors: David Brown

Why does time exist? Why does space exist? Why does energy exist? Consider the following conjectures (A), (B), (C): CONJECTURE (A): Time exists because 2^46 divides the order of the monster group. CONJECTURE (B): Space exists because 3^20 divides the order of the monster group. CONJECTURE (C): Energy exists because the monster group and the six pariah groups allow D-brane gravitation and D-brane charge-based force to provide symmetries for a stable, oscillating multiverse that runs on a synchronized big-bang cycle of 81.6 billion years (± 1.7 billion years). Are the 3 preceding conjectures complete nonsense? If nature is infinite, then the 3 conjectures are wrong. However, my guess is that the following conjectures (D), (E), (F) are valid: CONJECTURE (D): Each superstring has 24 D-brane charges in a higher-dimensional superfluid with 3 energy-density levels vibrating with respect to 3 distinct copies of the Leech lattice. CONJECTURE (E): AdS = CFT has a physical interpretation consisting of a 72-ball that undergoes vibrations and oscillations with respect to a nonmeasurable superstring time. CONJECTURE (F): Nature is finite and digital. (This hypothesis is due to Konrad Zuse and Edward Fredkin.) Is there a decisive test for conjectures (D), (E), (F)? I claim that the alleged Fernández-Rañada-Milgrom effect is such a test. This hypothetical effect states that the -1/2 in the standard form of Einstein’s field equations should be replaced by -1/2 + dark-matter-compensation-constant, where this constant is approximately sqrt((60±10)/4) * 10^-5. Motl has stated, “One may construct infinitely many observables. For each observable, we need a different device to measure it. Quantum mechanics is able to predict the probabilities that we get any result for any variable but these calculations cannot be reduced to any algorithm respecting a classical framework simply because Nature isn’t classical, stupid.” ‘t Hooft replied in part, “The usual objections against my CA theories are based on Bell’s inequalities: these objections are erroneous because of what they say on their page one, line one: their assumptions.” Is there an empirical test of Motl’s view versus ‘t Hooft’s view? I say that the alleged Fernández-Rañada-Milgrom effect is the decisive test. If nature is infinite, then there are in principle infinitely many quantum observables and, therefore, a cellular automaton simulation of quantum reality is likely to be either wrong or irrelevant. If nature is finite and digital, then the equivalence principle is likely to fail and, also, supersymmetry might be merely an approximation. I suggest that if string theory is empirically valid then the following idea is valid: Nature is finite if and only if supersymmetry is merely an approximation with weirdness that can only result from the failure of supersymmetry due to CA phenomenon. Am I wrong here? Perhaps so, but I suggest that the majority of string theorists are wrong about ‘t Hooft’s CA work. Have string theorists underestimated Milgrom and ‘t Hooft?

Comments: 6 Pages.

Download: PDF

Submission history

[v1] 2013-01-09 08:19:24

Unique-IP document downloads: 231 times

Vixra.org is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. Vixra.org will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.

Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.

comments powered by Disqus