Steven Weinberg commented on the issue of the multiverse (at http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/nov/07/physics-what-we-do-and-dont-know/ ). He wrote, “Inflation is naturally chaotic. Bubbles form in the expanding universe, each developing into a big or small bang, perhaps each with different values for what we usually call the constants of nature. The inhabitants (if any) of one bubble cannot observe other bubbles, so to them their bubble appears as the whole universe. The whole assembly of all these universes has come to be called the multiverse. ... Such crude anthropic explanations are not what we have hoped for in physics, but they may have to content us.”
Per Weinberg’s definition, the bubbles are distinguished by the different nature constants which they carry. Now, let’s discuss two bubbles only.
a. The bubble (us) has three well-defined nature constants [e (electric charge), c (light speed) and ħ (Planck constant)]. Then, these three constants are locked with a pure number, the Alpha.
b. The bubble (A) has some different nature constants [d, f, g and more], and we do not know anything about these constants. It might also be locked in some way, or might be not. If it does, we can also call it the Alpha [bubble (A)].
Thus, the Alpha should be a function of Alpha (bubble x) = Alpha [something (some nature constants perhaps), bubble-specific factors]. That is, Alpha must be bubble dependent according to Weinberg’s definition.
For the Alpha [bubble (us)], it is a lock which locks three bubble (us)-nature-constants. Yet, if we can show that the Alpha [bubble (us)]-equation is completely independent of any bubble (us)-factor, then it should be a bubble-independent parameter (a universal parameter for bubble (us)).
I have shown that the Alpha (bubble (us))-equation as follow.
Beta = 1/alpha = 64 ( 1 + first order mixing + sum of the higher order mixing)
= 64 (1 + 1/Cos A(2) + .00065737 + …)
= 137.0359 …
A(2) is the Weinberg angle, A(2) = 28.743 degrees
The sum of the higher order mixing = 2(1/48)[(1/64) + (1/2)(1/64)^2 + ...+(1/n)(1/64)^n +...]
= .00065737 + …
This Alpha equation is dominated by the number (48 and 64) and the Weinberg angle. If these three numbers are bubble independent, then the Alpha (bubble (us)) is a universal parameter for all bubbles.
First, I would like to ask a question which has two parts.
Is math the human construct and only as the *tool* for describing the laws of Nature? Or, the laws of Nature are embedded in math?
If all laws of nature (physics) are embedded in math, and all laws of nature (including the nature constants) are the direct consequence of math, then the *Inflation chaos* can only make bubbles but not *different kind of* bubbles. Thus, the way to examine the multiverse-hypothesis is hinged on the fact whether we can *derive* all known (including the unknown) laws of Nature from *math* or not.
As the math universe is *infinite* while the nature universe is finite, this task becomes concretizing infinities (the countable and the uncountable). In the book “Linguistics Manifesto (ISBN 978-3-8383-9722-1)”, it shows two concretizing processes.
One, embedding the countable infinite in finite --- this is done by trisecting an (any) angle. The following is quoted from that book.
If a thing "TA" is the product of an infinity to finite transformation, then TA is the concrete representation of that infinity. Can we find such a TA?
If such a TA does exist, it must be produced with "infinite" steps. Then TA and infinity (TA) are two sides of the same coin. That is,
From TA, we get infinity (TA)
From infinity (TA), we get TA.
In mathematics, there are two kinds of infinity, countable and uncountable. There is a commonly accept belief that there is no way to trisect an angle in Euclidean geometry. In fact, if we can evenly divide an angle, we can always trisect that same angle with the following process.
Divide angle A evenly.
Divide the two angles evenly again.
The top and the bottom angles are now 1/4 of A. As they are symmetrical, we will look the top angle AT only.
The middle angles are divided evenly again. They become 1/8 of A.
Let AT plus 1/8 A, and it is larger than 1/3 A.
Divide the 1/8 A evenly again, 1/16 A.
Let AT (1/4 + 1/8) minus 1/16 A. "AT" is now smaller than 1/3 A.
the above process goes countable steps.
Then, AT = 1/2 - 1/4 + 1/8 - 1/16 + 1/32 - 1/64 + 1/128 - 1/256 + 1/512 - 1/1024 + 1/2048 -... +...
= .33349 - ... + ... = .3333333333333..... = 1/3
With countable steps, the above process trisects the angle A "exactly". That is,
with countable infinity, we get AT. With AT, we get countable infinity.
With the above trisecting angle procedure, we know that 1/3 = 0.333333..., that is, 1/3 has a countable number of digits. In mathematics, we do know that the number pi (=3.14159...) is a normal number, that is, it has an uncountable number of digits in it. Then, how can we reach pi (precisely)? Well, we can reach it with the following equation.
(The circumference of a circle with a radius of 1/8) = 1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + 1/9 - 1/11 + 1/13 - ... + ... (with "countable" infinite steps)
= pi / 4
That is, the number pi (which contains an uncountable number of digits) is reached with a "countable" steps. So, the uncountable infinity can be renormalized with countable infinity, and countable infinity can be renormalized with the trisecting angle procedure.
Note 1: There is something interesting in equation A. The circumference of a circle with a radius of 1/8 (with an even number denominator) can be reached only with a sequence of odd number denominators.
Note 2: The area of this circle = pi / 64; then, the number "64" must be fundamental for this uncountable infinity renormalization process.
In the two equations above, the countable is concretized as a trisected angle, and the uncountable is concretized as a pie (with a radius of 1/8). These two concretizations are in fact the creation process (from infinities to finites), and it depends on two very important numbers [3 (or 1/3), 64 (or 4^3)]. Yet, these are the numbers for the Alpha-equation above. The “Theoretical calculation of Cabibbo and Weinberg angles (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/10/theoretical-calculation-of-cabibbo-and.html )” is also the direct consequence of the *trisected angle* and *the division of the pie (pi)*. That is, the
Alpha (bubble (us)) is not bubble dependent but is derived from a universal *concretization* process.
Alpha (bubble (us)) is not bubble dependent but is derived from a universal *concretization* process.
The definition of a bubble is that two bubbles must not have any connection. If there is a connection between two bubbles, they are in fact a single bubble. Thus, as soon as we show that Alpha [bubble (us)]-equation is bubble-independent, there is no need for us to content with the bubble(s) issue anymore. The concretization in the Nature math is indeed fulfilling a *mission* of bubble-busting. Thus, the multiverse-hypothesis is wrong. Furthermore, the physics underneath this Alpha-equation must be fundamental for all laws of physics. This truth sits here silently, blocking all detour attempts.
The above approach is significantly different from the current paradigm. The major difference is about the view on *MATH*. In the past 500 years, the Math was viewed as a human construct. Every great mathematician in the past created a set of lego pieces and built some great artistic wonderful structures. Yet, incidentally, many of these artificial structures are great *tools* for describing the laws of nature. This view was the history and cannot be arguing against. But, my view on math goes beyond that. That is, the physical universe is only a *subset* of the math universe, and all laws of physics (nature) can only be the emergent of laws of math. So, all known laws of physics (nature) must be directly *derived* from the laws of math, and all unknown laws of physics must also be derived from the *pure math*. Of course, if I cannot actually show the *derivations* of those laws from pure math, it will just be a personal opinion (simply nonsense). But, I have shown the calculations of the Cabibbo/Weinberg angles and Alpha. I also showed the calculations for dark mass and dark energy [DARK ENERGY, MYSTERY NO MORE! (http://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2013/09/25/dark-energy-mystery-no-more/ )] and the string unification. I think that these are enough as appetizers. Investigating the *physics* underneath those appetizers is much easier than building a new collider while I personally do support for building a new collider.
My project has only a very few step.
i. Concretizing the infinities (both countable and uncountable) with *physical* processes (the trisecting an angle and *dividing a pie*). This concretizing process is the *creation* process, and the Alpha-equation is this creation equation, as the anchor or the lock for the process.
ii. Second tier concretizing process (the rising dimensions) --- this is completely different from the ultra-dimension of M-string theory. This dimension is defined with Georg Cantor’ theorem ( In the 1870s, Georg Cantor proved that every n-dimensional space can always be brought into a one-to-one correspondence with the one-dimensional line, that is, one-dimensional line can give rise to n-dimensional space. See http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/origin-of-spatial-dimensions-and.html ). The number *64* becomes (4^3). That is, 3 spatial dimensions while each carries 4-sub-dimensions; a total of 64 dimensions. Then, these 64 dimensions are divided into two groups, 48 matter (anti-matter) dimensions and 16 vacuum dimensions (the dark energy). Yet, with the inter-dependent relations, these 64 dimensions are reduced to 11 dimensions [7 colors (packed and hidden) and 4 expressed].
This 4-sub-dimensions form a higher symmetry than the Standard Model symmetry, that is, the SUSY (with s-particle) is ruled out. Then, the Quantum/gravity unification and the mass-rising mechanism are truly the same issue. I have shown that the ħ (Planck constant) is, in fact, the gravitation force for the ground state of a hydrogen atom (see http://www.prequark.org/Gravity.htm which also discusses the mass-rising mechanism).
For the past 100 years, physics is very successful while *ignoring* some other obvious *facts*, the life and the math (using it only as tools). The exclusion of these two facts from the scope of physics was necessary tactically, as the laws of physics are, thus far, seemingly unable to encompass them two. But, by excluding them in *principle* (such as using Boltzmann Brain as a possible cause for the rising of life), physicists are then fooling themselves, as this Nature consists of, at least, three parts.
a. The physical universe (not including life),
Then, there are two possibilities. There are three different sets of laws for these three parts. Or, those three are governed with a set of unified laws. For the current physics paradigm, it has chosen the former. On the other hand, I have selected the later (they are unified). With this choice, the other two facts (lives and numbers) become the *checkpoints* for forming the physics theory.
Life has two very important attributes, the individuality and the need of processing information (needing a computing device). Thus, a physics theory which gives rise to life must encompass,
i. A four-color system (red, yellow, blue, white) or (A, G, T, C) which gives rise to individuality.
ii. A computing device --- abacus, counting straws or a Turing machine.
Numbers encompass infinities (countable and uncountable). Thus, a physics theory must also encompass those infinities (in a concretized form, at least), not just cut-them-off by using the renormalization.
With the above view, now we have two types of physics.
A. Human physics --- physics laws *discovered* by the human.
B. Nature physics --- physics laws created by Nature.
These two types of physics are significantly different in the aspect of the emerging processes. The human physics comes about in piecemeal. The Nature physics must come as an axiomatic system expression, that is, the axiomatic physics (see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/axiomatic-physics-final-physics.html ). This axiomatic physics goes way beyond some numbers. I have used some numbers (the Cabibbo and Weinberg angles, Alpha and Planck data) as the showcases for it, because there is no arguing about whether we have matched those numbers or not.
On the same token, there are two types of math.
C. The math of Nature --- giving rise to a physical universe (concretizing the infinities).
D. The math of human --- inventing some lego pieces and building some wonderful lego structures.
Today, the math is very much different from the physics. The validity of math needs not be verified by any *external* physical reality, that is, it is in fact de-linked from the physical universe in principle although it is the best *tool* for describing the laws of the physical universe. So, my questions are:
a. Is the math we know of today (human math) mainly the human construct (as the lego games)?
b. Is the human math the re-discovery of the Nature math, similar to the human physics which is the re-discovery of the Nature physics?
c. If there is indeed a Nature math, what is its *mission*?
d. Is the human math converging to the Nature math? Or just going all over the map, as the scope of the Nature math has infinite degree of freedom?
e. Is the Nature math governed by a set of unified laws which also govern the physical universe and life?
f. Many more.
The above questions are simple and reasonable, and they should change our view about math completely just by those questions, regardless of their answers. By choosing a *unified* view, the math becomes the *check-point* for any physics theory, and the structure of the laws of physics also must be the structure of the Nature math. The symmetry structure of the laws of physics are indeed the properties of many math structures. Steven Weinberg said, "String theory is attractive because it incorporates gravitation, it contains no infinities, ...". Yet, with this unified view, the physical universe (although totally finite) must encompass all infinities which are the essential parts of the math universe. And, this becomes a very important check-point for any physics theory. Thus, the concretization of infinities in a physics theory becomes the central point. Yet, we don’t see any such a connection between the human physics and the human math. The major problem comes from the definition of *continuity* in math, which sweep the essence of the Nature math under the carpet. The key essence of the Nature math can be expressed with one simple equation.
A – b = 0 but A is not b.
What does this mean?
The *numbers* are in *principle* (with some exceptions) not *reachable* by all finite *means* (arithmetic / algebra operators, etc.), such as (1/3) = .333… = .3C (C as countable digits) ; Pi = 3.14159… = 3.14159+ (+ as uncountable digits) ; etc. . This *unreachable* fact is permeated all over the places. The simplest example is the prime numbers which are unreachable by the *multiplication* operation (see The unreachable number principle (http://tienzen.blogspot.com/2012/05/unreachable-number-principle.html ). Thus, when b being a *touching* number of A [that is, their distance (A – b) = 0], but A is not b. That is, b is unreachable by all means, and the best way to identify b is A+ or A-. Thus, the majority of numbers must be *color* coded [let, A as yellow, A- as red and A+ as blue]. Then, there are *reachable numbers* (the white).
As numbers must be a colored-system, it could be the base for the life-color system (A, G, T, C) which gives rise to individuality. In fact, life has a third attribute, the immortality which needs 3 additional codes (colors) --- G1, G2 and G3 [G1 as M (male), G2 as F (female) and G3 as K (kids)]. If we can show that the numbers are in fact a 7-color system, then the Nature math is the base for life.
In the book “Super Unified Theory (ISBN 0-916713-02-4, Copyright # TX 1-323-231, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 84-90325)”, the entire set of laws of physics is *derived* from this Nature Math, and the half of the book is about this Nature Math.
Chapter 7 --- Colored numbers (page 53 – 61)
Chapter 8 --- Chromology (page 62 – 69), colored numbers (part 2)
Chapter 9 --- Unilogy (page 70 – 74), *punched* topology
The Chapter 7, it gives a detailed description about numbers which are a 7-color system.
This new paradigm claims that the *mission* for the math of Nature is to derive all laws of Nature (physics). Thus, I must show at least one solid example here, in addition to the deriving of the Cabibbo / Weinberg angles and the Alpha.
Again, the essence of the math of Nature is all about infinities and the pathways of their concretization. That is, the key equation is,
A – b = 0, but A is not b.
This means that most of the numbers are unreachable by finite means (arithmetic and algebra operations), as every *finite* number is the concretization of infinities (either countable or uncountable), and it does carry a tail with infinite digits. That is, for any selected number *A*, it is surrounded by zillions (at least two) neighborhood numbers which are not distinguishable from the number *A* by all means. Thus, all those unreachable (indistinguishable from the number *A*) numbers must be color-coded, such as, b = A (red) or = A (blue).
Yet, there is always a number C, and
A – C > 0
The largest C cannot truly be determined with finite means. But, in principle, there is always *a* largest C in the physical universe *with* finite means. That is,
A – C = g
Although we do not know the exact value for g, g is larger than 0 (g > 0). In the math universe, g is undetermined and can approach the concept of *continuity*. Yet, in the finite (physical) universe, this g becomes the smallest *deterministic unit*, distinguishing the number *C* from the number *A*. Indeed, for the *physical* universe, the g can actually be determined. Let,
X-axis as space, thus, the (delta S > =g).
Y-axis as momentum, the (delta P >= g).
So, (delta P) x (delta S) >= g^2
In physics, the photon is the medium for causality (see Constants of Nature, http://www.prequark.org/Constant.htm ). Thus, the smallest *deterministic* unit (for causality) in the physical universe is (photon / c), c is the light speed. That is, in the physical universe, g^2 = (photon / c).
Yet, the photon is the result of the interaction of e (electron).
So, g^2 = (photon /c) = (e^2/c), e is electric charge.
In the article “The Rise of Gravity and Electric Charge, ( http://www.prequark.org/Gravity.htm )”, the e-charge is,
e (charge) = (L * C)^(1/2) = [(1/2) ħ * C]^(1/2); L the angular momentum, C light speed, ħ (Planck constant).
So, g^2 = ħ * C / C = ħ,
Thus, (delta P) x (delta S) > = g^2 >= ħ
Now, the uncertainty principle of physics is the direct consequence of the *Nature math*, the essence of infinities and of unreachable of numbers. With this *derivation*, this new paradigm is fully verified. Yet, there is one very important additional point. That is, this major essence of the *unreachable numbers* is swept away in the human math by the concept of *continuity*. That is, the human math is completely unaware of this *Nature math*.
The cyclic universe (C-multiverses) with different initial conditions while having the same physics laws and nature constants is the central point in the book “Super Unified Theory; ISBN 9780916713010, US Copyright number TX 1-323-231”.
The simultaneous-coexist-multiverse (S-multiverse, with different physics laws and nature constants) is totally wrong.
See http://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/06/05/the-multiverse-as-a-scientific-concept-part-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-3158 and https://medium.com/@Tienzen/it-multiverse-is-a-theoretical-conjecture-one-that-makes-sense-but-it-isn-t-a-scientific-4abe8a8ac63
Note (added on August 28, 2016):
The current (2016) mainstream physics status is this:#PostCheckmateTTF (Post Checkmate temper tantrum fit).
Copyright © October 2013 by Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong