Paul Howard Frampton (1)

Frampton gave a talk as a gift to Murray Gell-Mann. Read it here.

Prof. Frampton solves two hard problems, dark matter and dark energy. I had posted some of his work before, even some rebuttal by Alexei V. Filippenko. I am not for or against Frampton's proposal, but I find them refreshingly simple.

Something you don't see?

Black holes.

Something you don't understand?

There is no dark energy, it just happens that we are inside a black hole.

This reminds me of something I read by Gell-Mann's worst nightmare, Dick Feynam. The Earth is on top of a huge turtle; and where is the turtle standing? It is turtles all the way down!

Beautiful; I think it was some kind of ancient myth, but he had a way with words and ideas. To me, Dick was the Groucho Marx, and Lenny Bruce of physics, all combined in a single package just like one of those Russian Matryoshka dolls.

Frampton writes:

"The creativity of homo sapiens had been underestimated. The Poincaré Conjecture was proved by Perelman, in less than three years. The Dark Energy problem was solved, by myself, in less than ten years."

Perelman = Frampton ?

mmh.

He goes on to say:

"It would be  wonderful to have lunch, maybe at L’Atelier de Joël Robuchon in Roppongi Hills, with Murray Gell-Mann, Isaac Newton, and Grigori Perelman to compare notes on personal fulfillment. What does Grigori Perelman mean, when he tells journalist, in turning down a million dollars, I have all I want. I’m not interested in money or fame? This seems to baffle some americans, whose idea of happiness, as an inalienable right, is a three-comma net worth. Yet, a two-comma net worth suffices, for all practical purposes. Fame can hardly exceed that of the singer and entertainer, Elvis Presley (1935-1977), whose name, from my non-scientific studies in public transportation, is still recognizable by one billion people. He died, when he was only fourty-two, so his fame was not very useful."

"My result calls into question, almost all of the work done on quantum gravity, since the discovery of quantum mechanics. For gravity, there is no longer necessity for a graviton. In the case of string theory, the principal motivation^17,18 for the profound, and historical, suggestion, by Scherk and Schwarz, that string theory be reinterpreted, not as a theory of the strong interaction, but instead as a theory of the gravitational interaction, came from the natural appearance, of a massless graviton, in the closed string sector. I am not saying that string theory is dead. What I am saying is, that string theory cannot be a theory of the fundamental gravitational interaction, since there is no fundamental gravitational interaction."

If you read the paper you can see how bloated their egos are.

Am I envious?

I guess, if they would have invited me to the party, I would have been less so.