Dark Matter Data
My theory in http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0602022 says NO to the temperature estimate for the dark matter. OK now I remember yes, they use the VIRIAL THEOREM v^2 ~ GM/R

(v/c)^2 ~ (Gravity Radius)/(Radius) is VIRIAL THEOREM

kT ~Mv^2 ~ GM^2/R

In my ZPE theory however

GM/R^3 = c^2/
(Gravity Radius)/R^3 ~ /
Gravity Radius of Sun ~ 10^5 cm

Gravity Radius of Dark Matter Blob ~ 10^12 cm.

1 light year ~ 10^18 cm

1000 light years ~ 10^21 cm

/\ ~ 10^12/(10^21)^3 ~ 10^12/10^63 ~ 10^-51 cm^-2

i.e. vacuum radius of positive curvature ~ 10^26 cm for the attractive dark matter blob.

The repulsive dark energy vacuum radius of negative curvature is ~ 10^28 cm ~ Hubble radius

Therefore, the dark matter blob negative ZPE energy density on 10^3 light year scale is ~ 10^4 larger (in absolute value) than the positive dark energy ZPE density on scale of 10^10 light years.




The Virial Theorem



The virial theorem states that, for a stable, self-gravitating, spherical distribution of equal mass objects (stars, galaxies, etc), the total kinetic energy of the objects is equal to minus 1/2 times the total gravitational potential energy. In other words, the potential energy must equal the kinetic energy, within a factor of two.

Suppose that we have a gravitationally bound system that consists of N individual objects (stars, galaxies, globular clusters, etc.) that have the same mass m and some average velocity v. The overall system has a mass Mtot = N.m and a radius Rtot.

The kinetic energy of each object is K.E.(object) = 1/2 m v2

while the kinetic energy of the total system is K.E.(system) = 1/2 m N v2 = 1/2 Mtot v2

where v2 is the mean of the squares of v. The gravitational potential energy of the system can be written as:




We usually assume that all of the orbits travel on similar orbits that are isotropic, that is, are not flattened in any way and have no preferential direction; we say these are random orbits. The virial theorem then requires that the kinetic energy equals one half the potential energy, that is:

K.E. = - 1/2 P.E.







v^2 ~ GM/R

kT ~Mv^2 = GM^2/R


Therefore, we can estimate the Virial Mass of a system if we can observe:

The true overall extent of the system Rtot
The mean square of the velocities of the individual objects that comprise the system
If the motions are not random/isotropic, the virial theorem still applies, but its form changes a bit. Similarly, since our system is made up of many objects, we can gain some insight by seeing how the orbital velocities vary with radius from the center outward.

For example, in a spiral galaxy, the dominant motion of the stars in the disk is circular rotation in the plane of the disk. The variation in the orbital velocities with radius V(r) is called the rotation curve.

http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/vt.htm


On Feb 14, 2006, at 9:51 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Until I see details of what they assume about how they deduce the "temperature" I can't say. I am sure this will be discussed next week at UCLA Conference where I will be.

They have 3 10^7 solar masses in a sphere of diameter 1000 light years.

In my model the energy density is ~ (c^4/G)|/\|

So I would simply compute /\ from their measured density.

For dark matter this is negative ZPE energy density with positive pressure at w = -1, so /\ < 0.





On Feb 13, 2006, at 2:12 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Yes, but I think I see the flaw. They are assuming the particles are on mass shell. They have not even considered that it may be zero point energy gravitating with positive pressure. I am far from convinced. Maybe they will be at UCLA next week.

On Feb 13, 2006, at 2:00 PM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:

This could be critical for your theory:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4679220.stm
...the Cambridge team has provided new information with its detailed study of 12 dwarf galaxies that skirt the edge of our own Milky Way.

Using the biggest telescopes in the world, including the Very Large Telescope facility in Chile, the group has made detailed 3D maps of the galaxies, using the movement of their stars to "trace" the impression of the dark matter among them and weigh it very precisely.

With the aid of 7,000 separate measurements, the researchers have been able to establish that the galaxies contain about 400 times the amount of dark matter as they do normal matter.

"The distribution of dark matter bears no relationship to anything you will have read in the literature up to now," explained Professor Gilmore.


If this 'temperature' for the dark matter is correct, then it has huge implications for direct searches for these mysterious particles
Prof Bob Nichol
Institute of Cosmology and Gravitation, Portsmouth
"It comes in a 'magic volume' which happens to correspond to an amount which is 30 million times the mass of the Sun.

"It looks like you cannot ever pack it smaller than about 300 parsecs - 1,000 light-years; this stuff will not let you. That tells you a speed actually - about 9km/s - at which the dark matter particles are moving because they are moving too fast to be compressed into a smaller scale.

"These are the first properties other than existence that we've been able determine."



----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Sarfatti
To: Gary S. Bekkum
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 3:56 PM
Subject: Re: NEWS - Dark matter moving at a speedy 9 kilometres per second

too busy
On Feb 13, 2006, at 1:49 PM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:

Check out BBC audio at right on this page:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4679220.stm



----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Sarfatti
To: Gary S. Bekkum ; Lubos Motl
Cc: Dr. Eric Davis ; Hal Puthoff ; Tim Ventura ; David M Mcmahon ; Mark Pesses ; Ronald Pandolfi ; Creon Levit ; S-P Sirag ; Waldyr Jr. ; Keay Davidson ; Tony Smith ; carlos castro ; Eric Davis ; Hal P ; Paul Zielinski
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 3:35 PM
Subject: Re: NEWS - Dark matter moving at a speedy 9 kilometres per second

I will probably learn more about this next week at the UCLA Dark Matter meeting. This could be a crucial test of my theory. They could be misinterpreting their data. In my theory there are no dark matter particles on mass shell. Dark matter is simply negative zero point energy with positive pressure and w = -1 since it's isotropic out in free space. If anisotropic it will change w, e.g. the Casimir plates example. How do they measure that temperature?

On Feb 13, 2006, at 1:14 PM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:

"The results were surprising. Aside from their speed, the researchers calculated the smallest clump of dark matter that could exist, 1000 light-years across.These results imply that dark matter is hotter than predicted, meaning that what astronomers call 'cold' dark matter may not be so cold after all. At 10,000°C it's still cool by astronomical standards. But it's warm enough to solve two problems that have plagued standard models of how galaxies form: that there are too few dwarf galaxies and why dark matter has not concentrated in the centre of galaxies."

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1567144.htm
Dark matter sure is a fast mover

Marilyn Head
ABC Science Online

Monday, 13 February 2006


The galaxy cluster Abell 2029 is composed of thousands of galaxies, shown in this xray image, and an amount of dark matter equivalent to more than a hundred trillion Suns (Image: NASA/CXC/UCI/A Lewis et al)
Dark matter particles are zooming around the universe a million times faster than anyone predicted, UK astronomers say.

They've calculated that this mysterious substance, which governs how stars and galaxies move, is moving at a speedy 9 kilometres per second.

The University of Cambridge researchers have also worked out how dark matter likes to clump together and surprising details of how hot it is, data essential in modelling how galaxies form.

A preliminary report is available on arXiv, the online website operated by Cornell University.

Dark matter is mysterious because it doesn't emit radiation, making it difficult to spot. Indeed, no-one has detected it and not all scientists are convinced it exists.

"The best evidence for dark matter is that there are stars in our sky," says Professor Gilmore, director of the Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge, which made the latest calculations.

"Without it they'd be flying off into space."

Dark matter is the mass needed to hold stars in their given places as they move around galaxies; the faster they move the more mass is needed.

"Kepler and Newton were able to weigh the Sun just by knowing where Earth was and how fast it was moving," says Gilmore.

"We did the same thing, only in three dimensions, finding the 'weight' of dark matter by measuring the place and speed of a very large number stars in several dwarf galaxies orbiting the Milky Way."

Hanging out in clumps

The results were surprising. Aside from their speed, the researchers calculated the smallest clump of dark matter that could exist, 1000 light-years across.

These results imply that dark matter is hotter than predicted, meaning that what astronomers call 'cold' dark matter may not be so cold after all.

At 10,000°C it's still cool by astronomical standards. But it's warm enough to solve two problems that have plagued standard models of how galaxies form: that there are too few dwarf galaxies and why dark matter has not concentrated in the centre of galaxies.

Gilmore says he was initially wary of the results, which together seemed too simple to be plausible.

The discovery of a super-dim galaxy by Dr Beth Willman from New York University, gave the team an opportunity to successfully test its predictions.

Lisa Randall's "Warped Passages."
My prediction from http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0602022: NULL RESULTS, i.e. NO SUPER SYMMETRY PARTNERS. I also predict NO QUANTUM FOAM - no dispersion in the cosmic gamma rays showing the graininess of space. If I am wrong, then I am wrong. But, at least, I am decisive and definite. The LHC will be like the Michelson-Morley experiment.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/fourmilog/archives/2006-02/000648.html

John Walker wrote:

Monday, February 13, 2006

Reading List: Warped Passages

Randall, Lisa. Warped Passages. New York: Ecco, 2005. ISBN 0-06-053108-8.
The author is one of most prominent theoretical physicists working today, known primarily for her work on multi-dimensional “braneworld” models for particle physics and gravitation. With Raman Sundrum, she created the Randall-Sundrum models, the papers describing which are among the most highly cited in contemporary physics. In this book, aimed at a popular audience, she explores the revolution in theoretical physics which extra dimensional models have sparked since 1999, finally uniting string theorists, model builders, and experimenters in the expectation of finding signatures of new physics when the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) comes on stream at CERN in 2007.
The excitement among physicists is palpable: there is now reason to believe that the unification of all the forces of physics, including gravity, may not lie forever out of reach at the Planck energy, but somewhere in the TeV range—which will be accessible at the LHC. This book attempts to communicate that excitement to the intelligent layman and, sadly, falls somewhat short of the mark. The problem, in a nutshell, is that while the author is a formidable physicist, she is not, at least at this point in her career, a particularly talented populariser of science. In this book she has undertaken an extremely ambitious task, since laying the groundwork for braneworld models requires recapitulating most of twentieth century physics, including special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, particle physics and the standard model, and the rudiments of string theory. All of this results in a 500 page volume where we don't really get to the new stuff until about page 300. Now, this problem is generic to physics popularisations, but many others have handled it much better; Randall seems compelled to invent an off-the-wall analogy for every single technical item she describes, even when the description itself would be crystal clear to a reader encountering the material for the first time. You almost start to cringe—after every paragraph or two about actual physics, you know there's one coming about water sprinklers, ducks on a pond, bureaucrats shuffling paper, artists mixing paint, drivers and speed traps, and a host of others. There are also far too few illustrations in the chapters describing relativity and quantum mechanics; Isaac Asimov used to consider it a matter of pride to explain things in words rather than using a diagram, but Randall is (as yet) neither the wordsmith nor the explainer that Asimov was, but then who is?
There is a lot to like here, and I know of no other popular source which so clearly explains what may be discovered when the LHC fires up next year. Readers familiar with modern physics might check this book out of the library or borrow a copy from a friend and start reading at chapter 15, or maybe chapter 12 if you aren't up on the hierarchy problem in the standard model. This is a book which could have greatly benefited from a co-author with experience in science popularisation: Randall's technical writing (for example, her chapter in the Wheeler 90th birthday festschrift) is a model of clarity and concision; perhaps with more experience she'll get a better handle on communicating to a general audience.

Posted at February 13, 2006 00:11

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0602022 Emergent Gravity

On Feb 7, 2006, at 8:16 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

bcc
The key formal idea of the Bohm-Aharonov effect is closed non-exact forms, i.e. nontrivial homotopy.

The original Bohm-Aharonov effect was for a closed inexact 1-form e.g. IT EM 1-form A, superfluid 1-form v etc.
In every case single-valuedness of the BIT field implies quanta of flux of some kind, magnetism & circulation in the 2 above examples. The point is that the 2-form in this S1 case is locally zero and it's quantized flux without flux through the closed loop surrounding the line defect in the BIT field.

A 1-form A = Audx^u

is obviously a SPIN 1 vector field.

But gravity is SPIN 2

We need at least 2-Goldstone phases S2 vacuum manifold

The closed inexact 2-form of interest is obviously the AREA 2-form and its surface integral is quantized - hence Hawking-Bekenstein a piece of cake. It's volume exterior derivative is locally zero hence world hologram of t Hooft and Susskind is trivial if you look at in the right way!

This shows that the primordial inflation field must have 2 Goldstone phases for emergent Einstein gravity.

OK. Looks really interesting. I'll have to study all this in more detail.


On Feb 7, 2006, at 4:13 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Thanks.

Let's kick the dog-and-pony show aside for now while I have a look at this.


OK :-) Will you be at Specs tonite? I owe you a drink.

Later, probably around 10 pm.

We have some good dialogue for a theater of ideas piece.

Yeah.

But I'm not kidding about that LC decomposition. I think I may actually have it licked. But I need to run it by a mathematician.

Waldyr could tell you. But I think you are chasing a Mirage in same way Dan Smith is with his Eschaton and his "phenomenology."

There are natural LNIF observers the HOVERING ONES for the SSS Vacuum Metric. You can arbitrarily select them as your base and then any detectors in relative acceleration to them is a natural split. But it is not objective. It's like selecting the Hubble flow as a base line where the CMB is isotropic. You can do it. It's convenient to do it for many purposes, but it completely contingent, nothing intrinsic. It's like choosing the Greenwich meridian for navigating the oceans. Useful? Sure. Of fundamental importance? No.

So, for example, when you write

goo = 1 - rs/r = -1/grr

that's a very convenient representation for hovering LNIF observers at fixed r > rs. It's simple, it's easy to calculate the 4th rank curvature tensor components in that representation etc.

OK I translated your verbal analysis into the algebra of GR in that last message.

Yes. Actually your analysis is quite helpful.

I took the degenerate case first, i.e. LNIF rest frame of test particle stuck to the detector (a spring scale). It's like choosing a circle when you are looking for an ellipse with 2 "centers" or, in my case, two Goldstone phases for the inflation field not 1. ;-)

The point is to distinguish the force on the test particle pushing it off geodesic, from the generally different force on the detector pushing it off its geodesic.

Yes. The rest frame of the detectors is what I call the "observer frame of reference".

The doing of a weight measurement of the test particle by the detector is a degenerate case where both of those forces are identical because the test particle and the detector are relatively at rest both pushed off geodesic identically.

I've been treating the weight and the scale as test objects, not as detectors. You can analyze what happens to the pointer on the scale in any frame of reference, and with frame v a lot less than c the pointer reading doesn't change under
mere frame acceleration. Of course if you accelerate the *rest* frame of the weight and the scale, the pointer reading will change, but then you have accelerated their actual motion.

This is all pretty obvious, but it took a long time to get to this because you were not being clear to my mind.

Your example of you falling past me on the scale is your META-measurement of my weight measurement.

Yes, exactly -- which has to be consistent with the regular analysis of the problem.

Yeah, but this is all straight-forward and I do not think there is any gold in this mine.

The specification of observers is what determines the representation of the geometrodynamic field. The standard text book SSS vacuum solution

g00 = 1 - rs/r = - 1/grr

r > rs

is for HOVERING LNIF observers at constant r and no tangential velocity.

Right.

This is like specifying a gauge constraint.

OK.

What that might mean in internal symmetry is an interesting question since specifying the electromagnetic gauge is always a bit of a mystery divorced from direct operational meaning.

P = p - (e/c)A

(e/c)A as the field momentum stuck to the electron of momentum p

A -> A + gradChi

psi -> e^iChi psi

may have a more direct meaning?

Also setting the gauge like DivA = 0

is it only formalism or is there some secret physical meaning latent there?

Good questions. A deeper physical model might help answer them.

Z.


Jack Sarfatti wrote:

longer version is at http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravity.pdf

On Feb 7, 2006, at 1:57 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:


On Feb 6, 2006, at 8:34 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

In Jack's theory, the gravitational field is a macro-coherent BEC.


That I say is the INFLATION FIELD.

That's a concrete physical model. What we have been arguing about is exactly how to relate such a model to conventional GR at the phenomenological level, and how best to interpret GR in order to facilitate this.


This is a non-problem since I simply REPRODUCE Einstein's 1915 GR field equation in basically ONE LINE!


OK.


The formula for the curved tetrad in terms of the 2 Goldstone phases of the vacuum BEC.


OK.

Why do you need *two* Goldstone phases?


READ MY PAPER! It took me a long time to realize the ONE GOLDSTONE PHASE is not enough!

I need TWO to DERIVE semi-rigorously by GLOBAL topological homotopy methods

1. Hawking-Bekenstein area quantization and black hole entropy CONJECTURE
2. 't-Hooft-Susskind world hologram CONJECTURE
i.e. VOLUME WITHOUT VOLUME
as simply Bohm-Aharonov FLUX WITHOUT FLUX

Original B-A effect was with only ONE PHASE this demands SPIN 1 1-form is closed but not exact.

Gravity B-A effect needs TWO PHASES this demands SPIN 2 2-form is closed but not exact!

The quantized EIGENVALUES of the AREA OPERATOR must correspond to SPIN 2 that DEMANDS a closed non-exact 2-form i.e. an antisymmetric second rank tensor is the geometrodynamic area operator in the tetrad substratum of geometrodynamics!

3. Pioneer anomaly

On Feb 7, 2006, at 6:00 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Thanks. But will Ginsparg let it stay there?

On Feb 7, 2006, at 5:35 PM, Creon Levit wrote:

Its up on the archive. I just downloaded it.

Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Feb 7, 2006, at 12:56 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Remember an earlier version of this paper received several independent endorsements from people I did not know and who did not know each other. I had to cut it down. The size limit now is 1 megabyte BTW.

Your submission gr-qc.jsarfatti.4800 was accepted.

You can view this submission or make changes to it, by logging on with your current username and password. If you would like to grant someone else (co-author, administrative assistant, ...) the authority to view or change this paper you will need to provide the PaperPassword specific to this submission.

The paper id and paper password for this submission is

PaperId: gr-qc/0602022, ...
Abstract will appear in mailing scheduled to begin at 20:00 Tuesday US Eastern time (i.e., Wed 8 Feb 06 01:00:00 GMT).


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\Paper: gr-qc/0602022
From: Jacob Sarfatti Dr.
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 08:39:00 GMT (801kb)

Title: Emergent Gravity
Authors: Jacob Sarfatti
\ Einstein's equations of general relativity are derived from a model of the coherent vacuum inflation field with two Goldstone phases. Area quantization is derived from single valuedness of the inflation field. The world hologram conjecture is derived as the Bohm-Aharonov effect for a closed inexact geometrodynamic area 2 form.
\\

From the second edition of Super Cosmos in preparation Robert Laughlin’s Different Universe

“We physicists are fully aware of our own sententious tendencies and go to great lengths to keep them under control.” p.x

Robert Laughlin and Lenny Susskind are both physics professors at Stanford University and they are at odds with each other on some key fundamental issues about the nature of information loss down black holes. Susskind won a recent victory at GR 17 in Dublin (July 2004) where Stephen Hawking rolled over and admitted defeat in his twenty year debate with Susskind. On the other hand, Laughlin won the Nobel Prize in 1998 for his work on the fractional quantum Hall effect in thin films where the electrons attach to quantized magnetic vortices to form “anyons” with fractional charges, like the quarks, and a weird kind of quantum statistics like Schrodinger’s Cat both dead and alive, these anyons are neither bosons nor fermions and can morph into one or the other as control parameters like applied magnetic field are varied. The makes entirely new phases of matter including the possibility of high temperature superconductors – really high at maybe a thousand degrees Kelvin or higher. This has not been achieved in the lab although some think that the alleged alien flying saucers use this nanotechnology. The intellectual conflict between Susskind and Laughlin must make life interesting for the students like the creative tension between Feynman and Gell-Mann at Cal Tech. They had the same secretary with offices on opposite sides of her office if I remember correctly from 1968?

What are some of Laughlin’s key ideas? He comes from the tradition of P.W. Anderson’s “More is different” as a general theory of emergence of levels of physical reality beyond naïve mechanical reductionism in which the higher level is largely independent of the lower but not entirely of course. This is already in Bohm’s quantum potential landscape from which classical fields and particles get their marching orders. The quantum potential is form-dependent beyond the classical forces. The Bohm quantum potential landscape is Wheeler’s “BIT” or QUBIT to be more precise that is physical and organizational yet non-material. It is indeed the “élan vital.” The Bohm theory stops short of adaptive conscious spontaneous self-organization because it is the test particle approximation in which the classical fields and particles do not directly modify the landscape on which they roll. Indeed the same can be said for Lenny Susskind’s cosmic landscape theory. This two-way relation tolls the death knell for unitarity and signal locality. In fact, like in Carlo Suares’s “two-way” equation of Qabala shown to me by him in Paris in 1973, there is both a bottom up and a top down flow of influence in the Great Chain of Being and Becoming from possibly “spin foams” to curved space-time to the creation of quarks, leptons and gauge force bosons in the reheating of the big bang to the creation of galaxies from the stretched-out quantum gravity foam fluctuations, light atoms, molecules, stars, heavy atoms spewed out in super nova explosions, formation of planets, on to life and beyond to what to God perhaps? Don’t forget the Angels and Aliens? Or is the Mind of God always about in the quad dabbling here and there in the affairs of humankind? Does God make mistakes? Getting back to Laughlin’s ideas, here are some key quotations from his book:

“The laws of nature that we care about … emerge through collective self-organization and really do not require knowledge of their component parts to be comprehended and exploited.” p. xi

“I was having the same conversation with colleagues about Brian Greene’s ‘The Elegant Universe’ … but the subject always seemed to drift to … the pointlessness of making models of the world that were beautiful but predicted no experiments.” p. xii

Physics as Art for Art’s sake - is it one more sign of the Decline and Fall of Western Civilization under the retro-grade barbaric Islamo-fascist onslaught?
“Moreover, it was an ideological dispute: it had nothing to do with what was true and everything to do with what ‘true’ was.”

“Organization can acquire a meaning and life of it’s own and begin to transcend the parts from which it is made.” p. xiv

“The distinction between fundamental laws and the laws descending from them is a myth, as is the idea of mastery of the universe through mathematics alone.”

Dan Smith, AKA “Chicken Little” from the UFO Aviary recently came to San Francisco in January 2006 to promote his Panglossian idea right out of Voltaire’s “Candide” that we live in the “Best of All Possible Worlds” and that the “core story” in the book “Exempt from Disclosure” by former USAF spooks Robert Collins and Richard Doty (essentially we have been visited by aliens from another star system) proved “Intelligent Design” and the Apocalyptic Coming of the “Eschaton” that sounds something like being eaten by the aliens in a party arranged by Hannibal Lector playing Titus Andronicus. There would be a green tractor beam lifting all the faithful, Usama Bin Ladin & Co hopefully among them, up to the microwave ovens on board the Mother Ship. Well, Dan’s attempt to gather a following here in San Francisco, home of The Two and Jonestown in the New Age past, did not meet with success -- too many lions I suppose? What makes this story of more than passing interest is that Dan is the scion of a prominent family. His father was an aide to Ike on D Day and ran the IRS. His sister is a close friend of the President’s mother, Barbara Bush. Dan knows influential people high up in USG Intelligence. Dan is a Throop the family that donated the campus of Cal Tech. His mother gave a speech at the installation of John Baltimore as President of Cal Tech in 1999. Dan read my book “Space-Time and Beyond” in 1977 and completely flipped out as a result leaving a promising physics career at Princeton and Stanford. Indeed he had a contact with an alien named Sophia very similar to Joe Firmage’s contact that led him to form ISSO. This was unfortunate for the country because Dan was being groomed by Mumie to be President of the United States and because of me he did not make it and we got George Bush instead! J The point of this story, and there is a point believe it or not, is that when I tried my Sigmund Freud act on Dan to try to get him to see the absurdity of his position, he told me that I should read Robert Laughlin and that he was correct because he was using “logic.” In other words Dan Smith thinks he can master the secrets of reality by “logic” alone. This was not logical because Dan also spoke derisively of my use of mathematics not realizing, it seems, that Bertrand Russell deduced the foundations of Victorian mathematics from logic alone. However, Dan seems to have missed Laughlin’s

“Physical law cannot generally be anticipated by pure thought, but must be discovered experimentally, because control of nature is achieved only when nature allows this through a principle of organization.” p. xv

This omission by Dan is perhaps explained by the fact that when I gave him Lenny Susskind’s book he said he understood it all by reading only the last chapter.

Indeed, Lenny Susskind laments the lack of such a principle of organization for M-Theory formerly called string theory but extended now to a brane new world. However, Lenny seems recently to have found the Lost Chord in his cosmic landscape with eternal inflation populating its every nook and cranny giving us 10^500 parallel pocket universes, which is quite enough to explain the fine tuning of the cosmological constant out to the 119 decimal place in terms of the Weak Anthropic Principle. What of God, the Intelligent Designer? Lenny quotes Laplace to Napoleon “I have no need of that hypothesis.”