pátek 16. října 2009

Can Time-travelling Higgs sabotage the LHC?

This post is motivated by recent paper by H. Nielsen and M. Ninomiya and related NewScientist article and New York Times essay, in which organized effort in finding of Higgs boson would be inherently predestined to become unsuccessful in laws of thermodynamics and quantum mechanics. Article proposes an explanation, why USA Congress stopped the funding for the USA's SSC in 1993, and why the LHC itself suffered an embarrassing meltdown shortly after starting up last year just by this aspect of time travel behavior. This story illustrates in such way, in contemporary science every nonsense can be promoted, providing its supported by formal math, thus evading the accusation from crackpotism, which obligued some formally thinking bloggers to vindicate this generally accepted difference between speculation and crackpottery. Anyway, as the result of ongoing discussion, arXiv has reclassified related papers to "less serious" General Physics section.

The problem of commonly used reasoning of physical models by abstract math and/or even computer simulations is indeed in violation of causal hierarchy, in which formal models are always based on predicate logics, not vice-versa. Therefore if underlying model is proven logically wrong, then the whole formal derivations based on it becomes wrong as well - as the destiny of some formally brilliant - though logically missunderstood models has demonstrated clearly (hollow Earth theory, geocentric model of epicycles, interpretation of luminiferous Aether model by Michellson-Morley experiments, etc..). In Aether theory Higgs model plays no significant model of casual background, because AWT assumes, there are infinitely many levels of space-time compactification, which manifests in real world by may complex high dimensional interactions inside of complex ecosystems, like Borneo jungle or human society. Constrained string theory models of twelve or twenty six dimensions cannot be considered as ultimate causal background of Universe from practical reasons, Higgs boson background of Standard Model the less, because observable world is apparently more rich and dimensional, then these models are considering.

In addition, Higgs model is too vague to be considered seriously, because it has more then single formulations: Higgs model in classical physics is based on different phenomena, then Higgs-Anderson model in boson condensates and its technical derivation consists in a mere reshuffling of degrees of freedom by transforming the Higgs Lagrangian in a gauge-invariant manner. Well known "hierarchy problem" implies, that quantum corrections can make the mass of the Higgs particle arbitrarily large, since virtual particles with arbitrarily large energies are allowed in quantum mechanics. Therefore in my opinion physicists are just mixing various concepts and mechanisms mutually at each level of physical model derivation from phenomenological to formal one, which leads effectively in prediction of many types of Higgs bosons of different rest mass and behavior, thus making such hypothesis untestable.

We are facing this conceptual confusion clearly at the moment, when mainstream physics presents some discrete predictions about Higgs boson. From Standard model follows, the product of Higgs boson Yukawa coupling to the left- and right-handed top quarks have nearly the same rest mass (173.1±1.3 GeV/c2) like those predicted for Higgs boson (178.0 ± 4.3 GeV/c2). We can compare the way, in which Higgs is supposed to be proved and detected at LHC:

And the way, in which formation of top-quark pairs was evidenced and detected already at Fermilab:

Because the observation agrees well both in Higgs mass, both in decay mechanism expected, it basically means, Higgs boson was observed already as a dilepton channel of top-quark pairs decay and no further research is necessary, investments into LHC experiments the less from perspective of evidence of this particular Higgs boson model - which indeed falsifies the above hypothesis of Nielsen & Ninomiya as well. Of course, conflict of many research interests with needs of society keeps these connections in secret more effectively, then every model of time-traveling Higgs thinkable can do.

This stance is nothing very new in contemporary physics, which often looks for evidence at incorrect places, while neglecting or even refusing clear evidence from dual view of AWT. We can compare it to search for event horizon during travel into black hole, while it's evident from more distant/general perspective, we crossed it already. The "unsuccessful" research for luminiferous Aether, while ignoring dense Aether model is the iconic case of this confusion, but we can find many other analogies here. For example, scientists are looking for evidence of Lorentz symmetry violation and hidden dimensions by violation of gravitational law, while ignoring Casimir force, or they trying to search for gravitational waves, while filtering out noise from detectors, just because they don't understand their subject at transparent, intuitive level.

Apparently, additional cost of research and general confusion of layman society is the logical consequence of this collective ignorance, while it keeps many scientists in their safe jobs and salaries in the same way, like mysticism of Catholic Church of medieval era - so I don't believe in comprehension and subsequent atonement in real time.

pondělí 12. října 2009

Rachel Bean: GR is probably (98%) wrong

This post is motivated by recent finding of Rachel Bean, who found, various WMAP, 2MASS, SDSS, COSMOS data concerning the Sachs-Wolfe, galaxy distributions, weak lensing shear field, and the cosmic expansion history doesn't fit general theory of relativity (GR for short). The reactions of Sean Carroll and/or Lubos Motl are careful, as someone may expect : "well, this could be challenging - but probably irrelevant, because GR has proved itself so many times, but the science should care about such details, mumbojumbo..."

Jeez - but how GR was derived before eighty years? This theory puts an equivalence between curvature of space and spatial distribution of energy of gravitational potential, as borrowed from Newton's theory (because we really have no better source for function of gravitational potential with distance, then the forty years old gravitational law). So, if we know the mass of object, we can compute the spatial distribution of potential energy, so we can compute the spatial distribution of space-time curvature - end of story (of GR). Or not?

Not at all, because from the very same theory follows, energy density is equivalent to mass density by E=mc^2 formula - so we are facing new distribution of matter in space, which should lead into another distribution of space-time curvature and energy of gravitational potential curvature, which leads to another distribution of matter, and so on - recursively. Such implicit character of GR was never mentioned in classical field theory of GR and corresponding textbooks - so it's nothing strange, it violates all observations available by now. But it's still prediction of GR postulates and it fits well with fractal implicit character of Universe and AWT - it just requires to derive Einstein's field equations more consequently and thoroughly.

Wow, this could be really breakthrough in physics and challenging task for new Einstein - or not? Of course not - and here we come to real problem of contemporary science - because such approach is fifty years old already and its even used in dark matter theory, in fact. Such modification would lead into quantization of gravity and longly awaited quantum gravity - the only problem for formally thinking physmatics is, it brings a quantum chaos into ordered world of formal relativity too, as there is (nearly) infinite number of ways, how to derive it - and all ways are still only approximations of real situation. The names like Cartan, Evans, Heim, Yilmaz, J. Bekenstein or Rudi V. Nieuwenhove are all dealing with this approach in less or more straightforward form - but this cannot change thinking of incompetent, though loudly blogging people, who invested two or more years of their life into learning of GR derivations, until they become "productive" with it (as measured by number of articles published) - so now they simply have no time and/or mental capacity to understand something new, to extrapolate the less.

Of course it's not just a problem of few desoriented bloggers, but inertia of whole mainstream community, the size of which prohibits introduction of new ideas and which has chosen formal approach to classical theories as a salary generator for their safe life. In this way, every new idea or derivation is simply forgotten, until it's revealed again in another, slightly different connection, when everyone appears surprised, how is it possible, GR isn't working properly?

úterý 29. září 2009

AWT and gravitational waves

Concept of gravitation waves (GWs) belongs into subjects, where AWT can bring a substantial insight and testable predictions immediately even from pure qualitative point of view. This is particularly because GWs were subject of controversy from its very beginning before more then fifty years. Even Albert Einstein didn't believe in both black hole concept, both GWs very much (1, 2) and now, after seventy years we still have no direct observational evidence of both phenomena. Who is responsible for it - or isn't whole truth a bit different? AWT proposes a simple explanation of this paradox, following analogy of vacuum with water surface, where transversal light wave corresponds the surface wave and GW's are corresponding the longitudinal waves spreading through hidden dimensions of underwater. This analogy explains too, why we didn't observe gravitational waves already, while ignoring CMB noise in the role of GW's.

This post was motivated by recent articles, announcing null result in search for primordial GWs at frequencies around 100 hertz on LIGO and VIRGO (1, 2, 3). These GWs should be created during the first instants of the Universe's existence. It's somewhat surprising -but still logical with respect to common disbelief in Aether model - that while microwave photons of cosmic microwave background (CMB) were correctly recognized in famous expanding balloon analogy as a remnant of primordial gamma ray photons, covering surface of our Universe expanded during inflation, the same photons weren't considered primordial GW's collapsed during inflation from supersymmetric perspective of AdS/CFT duality.

Such duality points directly to equivalence of primordial photons and gravitons which was transformed into duality of CMB photons and gravitational waves. It means, primordial gravitational waves searched are just the tiny density fluctuations of vacuum density, responsible for CMB noise, which was laboriously filtered out from signal in LIGO/VIRGO detectors! This is funny situation, indeed.

There are at least two levels of dumbness:
  1. First level is to spend money while trying to find artifacts, which cannot be observed by their very definition. But this is basically, what the research is about by R. Feynman ("Research is what I do when I don′t know what I′m doing".)
  2. Second level is to spend money while trying to find artifacts, which everyone can detect in his TV antenna and which were filtered out from experimental results intentionally (i.e. background noise in GWs detectors).
It's not dumbness of scientists involved though, because these scientists aren't spending their money: these money are going from our taxis. It's just our dumbness.

Gravitational waves are deformations of space-time curvature, i.e. they're manifesting like density fluctuations of space. They shouldn't be confused with CMB photons - CMB photon is component of density fluctuation, which propagates in light speed, but in short distance only. Gravitational waves forming CMB noise at human scale are dual to gravitons at Planck scale: we can say, they're gravitons expanded during big bang in similar way, like CMB photons are form of gamma radiation expanded during inflation of early universe. In addition, GWs shouldn't be confused with gravity waves, which are product of gravity and EM interaction coupling in material environment. As a direct analogy of GWs in AWT model of water surface are underwater sound waves, which are spreading in extra-dimensions with respect to surface waves. Due the low compressibility and high density of water such underground waves can be observed at water surface only during the most intensive explosions, like at the case of underwater nuclear explosions (compare YouTube videos 1, 2, 3). Because sound spread in higher number of dimensions, then the surface waves, it suffers by faster dispersion with compare to surface waves.

Inside of vacuum - which is much more dense phase of Aether, then the water - such effects are even much more pronounced and gravitational waves are dispersing there at the distance scale corresponding the wavelength of CMB (~ 2 cm). As an evidence of GWs dispersion can serve Casimir force, which can be detected at micrometer scale and its distance dependence corresponds the longitudinal wave shielding in six dimensions, thus violating equivalence principle of general relativity, being proportional the area, not by inertial mass of objects. Shielding effect of gravitational waves from CMB manifest even at cosmological scale as a anomalous deceleration of Pioneer and other space-probes (1, 2), which violates equivalence principle, too.

From analogy with underwater wave spreading follows, GWs are way way faster, then the light waves: they would be able to cross whole observable Universe in a moment in the same way, like light wave is able to cross black hole of average size. So GWs are violating causality of information spreading mediated by light waves (radiative time arrow) and they're inherently chaotic, so they're interacting with chaotic matter only, i.e. boson condensates (compare the gravitational waves reflection and shielding during Podkletnov anitgravity experiments with rotating superconductors). Being tachyons, gravitational waves are expected to be primarily responsible for entanglement and "action at distance" phenomena of quantum mechanics.

Highly dimensional character of gravity interaction is the main reason, the intensity of gravitational waves decreases a much faster with distance, being dispersed by membranes of quantum foam, because they're spreading across quantum foam bubbles in longitudinal waves. This effectively means, gravitational waves are of dispersive character, so they cannot be observed at distance even et the case of quite energetic events, like at the case of black hole and pulsar merging. This doesn't mean, dispersion of energy doesn't exist here so we can still consider theory of binary pulsar changes relevant to gravitational radiation.

While AWT explanation of GWs is quite simple and intuitive, general disbelief in Aether concept prohibited scientists to think in such straightforward way for many years, until recently some of them changed their opinion in relation to brane world paradigm and so-called holographic principle. Accordingly, some superluminal GWs models were presented in peer-reviewed journals (1, 2) recently together with observation of random changes in level of gravitational noise, which is attributed to holographic model of GWs (so called the holographic noise). Note that holographic projection at Universe scale requires superluminal speed of GWs for to be able to work at all, thus violating general relativity theory of GWs from its very beginning. But it's not quite clear for me, why just the noise was considered here. If we found a harmonic gravitational wave, it could be interpreted as a part of giant holograph as well. In this way, the finding of gravitational noise appears rather invariant to holographic theory for me and it can still have a more robust and consistent explanation in context of AWT.

neděle 20. září 2009

AWT and Big Bang theory.

In AWT the relevance of Big Bang theory is closely related to the concept of "Observable universe" and the "edge of observable space-time", which depends (as everything in AWT) on duality between insintric and exsintric perspective. According to the theory of cosmic inflation and its founder, Alan Guth, the entire universe could be (at least) 1023 to 1026 times as large as the observable universe, which roughly correspond the speed of gravitational waves propagation through observable Universe.

From insintric perspective we can apply principle "Similia simillibus observatur" (only things of similar nature can interact mutually in observation) - so we can consider, Universe is composed of many different combinations of Aether states, whereas we are composed from limited number of such states, being only part of Universe. If the probability of occurrence of our particular combination of states decreases with distance, then the probability, we could interact with the rest of Universe decreases with distance as well. Therefore we can observe "edge of space", but we cannot reach it, because we would evaporate first in unfriendly ("hot") vacuum around it.

This is basically anthropocentric "black hole model" of Universe formation, which introduces evolutionary absolute reference frame: if we evolved in certain part of Universe, it's because, the conditions were relatively favorable for us here and if we would travel outside of from this pretty place, we can only face problems there. It's evident, every surface of matter, like hot star or black hole forms such natural boundary of observable Universe for us and it's even possible, matter in remote galaxies evolved into exotic forms of matter, which would annihilate (i.e. explode) less or more completely in direct contact with us.

Exsintric perspective of Universe is less real but more optimistic and it has no apparent boundary: the probability of our particular combination of states decreases, but the number of new combinations increases even faster with distance, so we can always find a some friendly combinations of states there. Until space-time is formed by "friendly combinations" of states, it means, we are observing free space, so we can travel through it without apparent limit and danger - but there's no certainty, we aren't just moving in circles during this, because concept of distance and free space is tautological here. From AWT follows, real appearance of Universe is a formed by nested foam mixture of insintric and exsintric perspective: there are many places, where we can finish in our travel prematurely (planets, stars and black holes) - but in general Universe appears as an empty free space due the Olbers paradox.

Olbers paradox is a consequence of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), which is behaving like subtle density fluctuations of space (i.e. gravitational waves) violating Lorentz and Poincaré symmetry, which results in gradual dispersion of light into hidden dimensions of space-time in analogy to spreading of splash ripples at the water surface. This analogy follows directly from concept of dense Aether of AWT, but it's not completely new, as it was proposed independently by James Clifford Cranwell between years 2001 and 2007. Mr. Cranvell's concept was bright, but it illustrates clearly, without active (self)promotion no idea has chance to become famous in fast expanding Internet space, if it has no immediate usage for sufficiently large group of people - no matter how brilliant it is. Unfortunately Mr. Cranvell didn't recognize the power of dense Aether concept as such and he turned his attention to derived concept of omni-directional expansion of space-time, which is apparently more abstract and it can be interpreted in dual way by AWT.

For observer of transversal waves at water surface the speed of ripples increases fast with distance (they change into gravitational waves), which can be interpreted from the perspective of this observer as an omni-directional expansion of space-time with distance. The same situation is relevant for observation of distant parts of our Universe via light waves.

At sufficient distance from observer wavelength of transversal waves ceases to zero, which can be interpreted by this observer as an initial singularity of Big Bang theory, or like surface (event horizon) of black hole (cosmic void), which observer occurs. From AWT follows, these models may be of certain relevance from perspective of numerical models - but they're all invariant to observer localtion. We can compare this situation to observation of landscape under haze - visibility scope will be limited by dispersion of light, but it will move accordingly to actual location of observer.

Because this effect is apparently nonlinear, we can explain dark energy phenomena in the same way. From outside we can see, these ripples get more dense gradually, until they disperse completely. The same effect appears at cosmological scale like slowing the speed of light in dense environment, surrounding every source of radiation, so it can be used for explanation of cold portion of dark matter and its connection to Hubble constant as well. Whereas from perspective of insintric observer, Universe appears like we would travel through density gradient, forming event horizon of black hole (some string theorists are talking about "throat of dark brane" in this connection).

From more general view of AWT this evolution is just an illusion, which follows from insintric observational perspective inside of fractal Aether foam, because we are connecting the observation of microscopic scale with the future of Universe expansion, the past with observation of vast cosmic space. Evolution of large objects is the more slow, the larger these objects are and Universe as a whole doesn't really evolve at general scale. The only question is, whether such general perspective is achievable for human creatures by experiments, i.e. by different way then just by pure human imagination.

Nevertheless, from AWT follows, Big Bang theory would suffer by fundamental problems in near future, which are of both of practical, both philosophical (ontological) nature. Observational problem with Big Bang is, we can observe well developed and separated galaxies in the Hubble ultra-deep field, when the Universe was just 2 - 3 billions of years old. And Milky Way galaxy is more then ten billions of years old, so that these ancient galaxies have not enough time to separate and develop. This conclusion was supported by recent observation of well developed galaxies (with very low speed of star formation) in ultradeep field of refurbished Hubble telescope in contrary to standard cosmological model based on Big Bang theory, in which star formation couldn't occur during dark era of universe formation.

Ontological problem of Big Bang theory is, it brings more questions, then answers - not saying about the problem of initial singularity. It can explain red shift, but it cannot explain dark energy. And it requires inflation, which appears like ad-hoced concept from contemporary perspective, although it can be interpreted as a phase transition of Aether easily and it can be reconciled with ekpyrotic cosmology in such way. But from general perspective it seems, all these models are just plural result of dispersive nature of Aether environment. The analogy of Universe evolution with stellar and galactic evolution is just apparent, because from very general and remote perspective Universe behaves like atemporal stuff (perceived mass/energy density of Aether increases ad infinitum).

pondělí 14. září 2009

Michelson–Morley experiment is best yet

Physicists in Germany have performed the most precise Michelson-Morley experiment to date, confirming that the speed of light is the same in all directions. The experiment, which involves rotating two optical cavities, is about 10 times more precise than previous experiments – and a hundred million times more precise than famous Michelson and Morley's 1887 experiment (MMX).

This zero result still cannot be interpreted as an absence of Aether environment for light spreading (so called luminiferous Aether), though. This is because no (motion/reference frame of) environment can be detected by its own waves locally, and nothing strange is about it. Whether we can observe water surface by water surface waves? Indeed not - with respect to these waves water surface is just a void, empty space. If we would observe something, it would be obstacle for surface waves, but not environment anymore. This is a trivial geometrical insight, independent to character of light wave and or even Aether theory validity: no local object can be observed from insintric and exsintric perspective at the same moment, i.e. locally.

This still doesn't mean, such environment doesn't exist from nonlocal and/or higher-dimensional perspective, mediated by tachyons, like gravitational waves, for example. And because every laser is of finite length, we should observe nonlocal effects, too. The true is, due the quantum phenomena no object is completely local and for microwaves of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) Lorentz symmetry would remain fulfilled even at the case, when these objects would remain relatively large - in distance/size range of CMB wavelength (~2,64 cm at 2,73 K black body temperature), which roughly corresponds human scale (size of brain waves). Therefore for CMB Lorentz and Poincaré symmetry remains violated only at the cosmological scale (Doppler anisotropy of CMB).

For photons of observable light we should detect gradient of CMB photons density (dark matter effect, dual to Casimir force) and Lense-Thirring effect (frame dragging effect) in proper orientation of laser perpendicularly to gravitational field gradient. The later effect will lead to antigravity effects at speed higher then 0,57 c, thus switching the sign of dark matter effect. Such insights renders warped space around moving Earth in rather complex way. The nonzero rest mass of photons would complicate result of MMX even more for light of shorter wavelengths. For example gamma ray photons are insintrically slow and they could be outdistanced even by lightweight part of observable matter (aka neutrinos), whereas photons of longer wavelengths, then the CMB are effectively tachyons and they undergo fast dispersion in CMB field.

neděle 13. září 2009

Multidimensional character of emergent perspective

This post is just a copy of few silly comments to ongoing discussion about concept of minimal length in quantum gravity and Lorentz symmetry violation. AWT enables to separate the subtleties of particular quantum field theories from general problem consisting in subconscious mixing of insintric and exsintric perspectives.

In AWT Lorentz symmetry(LS) is direct consequence of observational perspective. When we are observing low dimensional space (like 2D+1T water surface) from strictly 2D+1T perspective, LS is indeed maintained. When we are observing the same situation from higher dimensional perspective, LS can be violated and nothing very special is about it. AWT stance is, every space-time is completely homogeneous from its own perspective by definition and its LS cannot be violated. At the moment, when we are discussing some homogeneities in it, we are applying higher dimensional perspective, which enables LS to become violated. "An Outside View" is always of higher dimensionality, then insider's view, so its LS can be violated by definition. If it wouldn't, we couldn't distinguish it from inside view, after all.

In AWT concept of minimal length doesn't exist from global perspective, because even the tiniest density fluctuations can be formed by some more smaller ones without apparent constrains. But there exist limit in observability of smallest density fluctuations from perspective of larger density fluctuations (like humans) or instrumentation, which was used for their detection. Aether fluctuation at particular dimensional scale cannot interact with fluctuations at all remaining dimensional scales directly in accordance to principle "Simillia simillibus observatur". If we would use more sensitive/large apparatus, the limit of fluctuations on both sides of dimensional scale will increase accordingly and we would observe our Universe larger and quantum fluctuations smaller - but some general limit still persists here.

The philosophical question is, if such dimensional scale is real for people, because it's always interpreted by apparatus. Science answered such question positively already from the time of Galilei and van Leeuwenhoek. The main gnoseologic problem is, outside perspective remains undetectable from insiders, so we are always talking about somehow abstract phenomena, which can be proven by higher dimensional emergent approach only, i.e. by coincidence of two or more indirect evidences - but not by direct observation. Whole evidence of emergent Aether concept is about it, after all.

It should be pointed out, the existence of space-time at sub-Planck scale (i.e. existence of "subminimal length") lies outside of observational perspective scope of insiders too, so we are relating existence of one unprovable phenomena (Lorentz symmetry violation) by existence of another one (sub-Planck length).

Proclamativelly rigorous people, who are working with insintric perspective preferably can say easily, both ideas are BS - whereas other people, who knows, that more is different and really is different and how emergent phenomena are working, can expect, combination of two or more undetectable phenomena (assumption) could still lead to new observable (i.e. testable) predictions, thus fulfilling utilitarian perspective of further evolution. After all, renormalization procedure is quite similar approach based on emergence, because its extrapolating singular function by pair of their derivations from both sides of divergence. In this way, modern physicists just replaced wide-scale philosophical extrapolations by these less-visible formalized ones.

sobota 29. srpna 2009

Continental Europe bans USA invention

Starting from Tuesday, September 1st, 2009, European Union is banning the production of incandescent light bulbs above 80 Watts in a bid to introduce compact fluorescent models, widely known as energy-savings bulbs. In 2012, only "efficient" light bulbs will be allowed and by 2016, they want to ban even the halogen lamps. EU contend that the average family will save $64 per year on electric bills, and carbon emissions could be cut by 15 million tons. On the flip side, some 3,000 jobs could be lost since most incandescent bulbs sold in Europe are made in the region, while the fluorescent variety come from elsewhere.

This can be perceived as temporal victory of energy over matter, as the compact fluorescent models are five to seven times more energy efficient, then incandescent light bulbs. But this balance can be easily reversed in near future, because fluorescent lamps are more demanding on irrecoverable sources in form of rare earth elements (REEs), used in luminophore production. 95% of output production of rare earth elements comes from China and China is now considering a ban on certain rare earth elements. The solution may be organized recycling of these luminophores or the replacement of rare elements by another ones or increased usage of LED-based sources for illumination. This example illustrates, the replacement of power hungry solution is always followed by increasing consumption of material sources, thus demonstrating universal matter-energy duality.

Because younger son of Czech president Vaclav Klaus is top manager of CEZ, main energetic company of Czech Republic, his wife, economist Livie Klaus was member of the CEZ supervisory board until 2002 and another son got four million euros donation from CEZ for his private school last year, it's logical, Vaclav Klaus himself is well known lobbyist of CEZ company and promoter of energetic dependence of Czech Republic to Russian fossil fuel import. Therefore it's very not surprising, Vaclav Klaus boycotts environmental politics of EU and he is openly promoting the consumption of energy hungry incandescent light bulbs in public.

AWT and cosmological time arrow

Contemporary physics distinguishes many time arrows, which are related mutually, so that no discussion about time can have a deeper meaning without specification of particular time arrow. Contemporary physics handles no generally acceptable model for these time arrows and it doesn't understand time concept from general perspective. In particular description of relativistic space-time from macroscopic perspective remains separated from description of time at microscale, where thermodynamical time arrow is applied. Without consideration of concept of Aether emergence these time arrows cannot be reconciled at predicate logic level.

In AWT most general time arrow is so called cosmological time arrow related to omnidirectional Universe expansion, which is manifestation of dispersive character of energy spreading. While the general understanding is, Universe is facing thermodynamical death, it's not true at all as such conclusion is observer dependent. It's observer, not a Universe, who suffers by entropic processes and entropy of Universe as a whole remains constant from exsintric perspective. Thermodynamical death of Universe is just a consequence of Simillia simillibus observatur principle.

We cannot neglect fact, one half of Universe evaporates and separates by antigravity (radiation pressure), while the second one agglomerates by gravity. In AWT boundary between insintric and exsintric observational perspective is divided by observer distance scale, which corresponds to wavelength of cosmic microwave background (CMB scale) at 1.73 cm. Above such scale thermodynamic time arrow for material object becomes reversed and driven by gravity. So what we are observing are two thermodynamical processes separated by CMB/human scale into exsintric and insitric perspective. Material objects, which are large then 1.73 cm tends to agglomerate in their gravity field into larger ones. This is essentially negentropic process, related to inverse time arrow, whereas object smaller then CMB photons are evaporating into radiation, whis is indeed common entropic process. For particles of energy the whole situation remains reciprocal: large photons are dissolving like tachyons in CMB, while smaller one are condensing into solitons, i.e. material particles. No process violating CPT symmetry was observed so far.

If we consider material particles as the only observable part of Universe, thermodynamical time arrow becomes dual for 3D space-time, so we can propose more general, cosmological time arrow, which is independent to entropy of Universe (which remains the same in this case), but it's defined by the combination of the above processes. At the moment, when we would observe separation of large objects while the smaller ones would condense, we could say, not just thermodynamical, but cosmological time arrow gets reversed, too. It corresponds the propagation of observable objects across space-time brane, composed of mutually interacting gradients of Aether foam density, so that entropic processes are always balanced by these negentropic ones. From macroscopic (the past) or microscopic (the future of space-time expansion) perspective Universe is behaving like randomly undulating Aether gas, where formation of density fluctuations balances their dissolution and Universe appear atemporal, albeit it's still full of random motion. Every time arrow observed is therefore a local effect only.

While thermodynamical time arrow appears broken above CMB scale for material objects, it's just an effect of inverse geometry, in which dispersion of information occurs. Thermodynamical time arrow still remains valid here due the dispersive nature of energy spreading. In AWT gravity is just thermalization as being observed from exsintric perspective of Le-Sage Aether model. All forces are of dispersive nature, which is behaving like shielding Duillier-LeSage force from dual perspective (dual force to gravity is pressure of radiation, i.e. the only force, which can defy gravity). But we are observing universe from both perspectives, so we shouldn't omit gravity when talking about entropy from general perspective. Note that near CMB scale inverse square law for gravity becomes violated due the cosmic microwave radiation and gravity becomes effectively repulsive force bellow this scale, because of prevailing pressure of CMB radiation. This manifests by violation of equivalence principle in 3D and by weak deceleration assigned to dark matter. Again, it's just an result of perspective inversion - as a finite size fluctuation of Aether we're observing the same Le Sage gravitation "from inside". From local perspective time arrow and sign of gravity are related mutually by trivial projective geometry of mutual interactions of density fluctuations via transversal waves.

pondělí 24. srpna 2009

AWT and GRB090510 photon controversy

This story was discussed extensively on Bee's and LuMo's blogs. In brief, recent observation of very remote (12.8+ Glyrs) gamma ray burst GRB090510 observed by Fermi observatory (former GLAST satellite) was followed by another lone gamma ray photon of extraordinary high energy (31 GeV), detected be terrestrial observatory MAGIC (Major Atmospheric Gamma Imaging Cherenkov) in the same moment (six seconds window of the whole three minute burst).

While string theory (ST) is based on LS, this result was interpreted by Motl as a confirmation of ST, although in fact it confirms the validity of one of string theory postulates only. Although gamma ray dispersion was considered as one of main tests of quantum gravity theories and the picture bellow was presented in many places, LQG theory in its current state of development has nothing to say very much to this result, because it maintains LS in 3D in the same way, like string theory, as Lee Smolin explained.

Phenomenological explanation of this controversy is simple in AWT and it's based on the fact, LS is valid only for strictly 3D space, whereas cosmic space is filled by gravitons expanded into gravitational waves during inflation, i.e. tiny density fluctuations responsible for cosmic microwave background (CMB). Therefore cosmic space isn't completely "flat" and it contains "traces of higher dimensions". While LS is indeed valid for all higher hyperspaces, their projection into 3D space isn't invariant with respect to LS anymore. From AWT follows, only microwaves can propagate through vacuum like harmonic wave, thus fulfilling LS at long distances, while longer waves are propagating like tachyons and shorter waves are always composed of photons, which are propagating by subluminal speed. This dispersion can be observed in GZK limit for gamma ray photons and it manifests by delay for gamma ray photons during weak (short distance) gamma ray bursts, like MKN501 event, observed last year. In accordance with this explanation, the dispersion of more close gamma ray flashes is usually much more pronounced, then at the case of these remote ones.

As a pronounced example of light dispersion during spreading through compactified gradient can can serve Hawking radiation of black holes, which can be interpreted like light escaping from glass sphere. Long wavelengths and gravitational waves can penetrate it freely, whereas shorter wavelengths are reflected back again by total reflection mechanism

The reason, why GRB090510 burst (and some others, like GRB 080916C from September 2008) didn't exhibit a pronounced dispersion consist in point, such bursts were very remote and as such they were quite energetic - an energy corresponding mass of Sun is released in form of gamma photons in brief moment! In AWT dynamic mass of photons manifests by real mass with gravitational effects, not just a combination of momentum and kinetic energy, as presented by mainstream propaganda. This is because in AWT photon has a nonzero rest mass, albeit quite minute one. Therefore the gamma ray burst propagates through vacuum like dense cluster of photons, tied their own gravity, or like soliton, similar to vortex rings, which can propagate through fluids and gases without dispersion.

Such photon cluster ("photoball") is analogous to glueballs, known from weak force scale and it can serve as a prototype of heavier elementary particles. It's formed by dense swarm of photons, where the most energetic and heaviest photons are propagating at the center, while these lightweight ones are revolving center of soliton along substantially longer path, which corresponds the segregation of matter by particle density at the case of massive bodies. This could have testable impact to the distribution of energies along time axis of gamma ray flash: heavy photons should appear at the center of Gaussian curve, representing the gamma burst observation.

Because photons influence mutually at distance in this model, it may be even possible, the lone photon observed in GRB090510 was actually trapped into gamma ray flash during its travel through wast cosmic space, or it could serve as its condensation nuclei in similar way, like particle of dust enables molecules of water to condense into droplet. It would mean, the occurrence of photons of unexpectedly high energy density inside of gamma ray flashes isn't accidental at all and such model leads to another testable predictions concerning gamma ray photons distributions. The "snowball" mechanism of avalanche-like photon trapping has its analogies at the case of rain or snow condensations, laser pumping or rise of Hitler's power before WWW II.

Because photons inside are moving independently to motion of soliton, they're propagating in hidden dimensions effectively: we can say, higher dimensionality of space-time, i.e. symmetry breaking of mass density (inhomogeneity) converts into higher dimensionality of particle motion during sufficiently large space-time interval, i.e. into symmetry breaking of energy density (dispersion). The same mechanism of composite particle formation can be applied onto every other heavier particles or even objects in social systems. All elementary particles are propagating through space like solitons, composed of smaller bosons, which can be illustrated for example by relation of spin projection into axis of motion to speed of particle. The escape of particles through polar jets of black holes can be considered as an exagerrated case of soliton mechanism.

Concerning LS violation, we aren't disputing a lone photons, the exact path of which is unavailable for us - but cluster of photons as a whole, which is indeed quite different situation: at the scope of such cluster individual photons may move randomly along different paths - while they're still keeping the shape of cluster as a whole. Therefore LS remains maintained at the cluster level with respect to dispersion, thus leaving postulates of string or LQG theory intacted - but whole cluster is still moving in subluminal speed with respect to lone microwave photons, so that even lightweight neutrinos can move faster in certain cases. Atemporal logics of formal math, used in these theories cannot handle such situation easily, because of collective motion of many objects at the same moment - although it's still quite trivial to understand. For example, while theories like DSR/DSR2 proposed by Smolin and Maguejio consider violation of LS less or more successfully in 3D, they still cannot explain "violation of LS violation" at both large distance and large energy density scales, which is indeed the case of gamma ray propagation across whole Universe.

String theory could easily model violation of Lorentz symmetry in inhomogeneous 4D space-time simply by declaring it a higher-dimensional flat space in the same way, like LQG - the only problem is, scientists on both sides of ST/LQG duality still didn't realize it, while they're still seeking for signs of both extradimensions, both Lorentz symmetry violation - although they have them before eyes all the time. In addition, here exists an interesting deadlock mechanism: string theorists (ST) could introduce Lorentz symmetry (LS) violation by considering of extradimensions, but they hesitate to propose it, because LS belongs between ST postulates in 4D space-time, while LQG proponents could introduce extradimensions by considering Lorentz symmetry violation, but they grudge against it, because they proposed LQG a just "4D theory" originally.

At the moment, when both sides are earning half of grant support, no one wants to start the reconciliation of both theories by considering of ideas of the dual theory. In such a way both sides are effectively locked inside of ivory towers of their own prejudices. I presume, this example situation explains a lot, how symmetry breaking is occurring at phenomenological level and it illustrates clearly, why theoretical physicists should be payed for reconciliation of existing theories be decreasing of number of postulates, instead of for development of new ones by increasing of number of existing postulates, because divergent character of their formal thinking prohibits them in reconciliation of existing theories.

sobota 22. srpna 2009

AWT and peer review

This post is motivated by recent discussion (1, 2) concerning the relevance of anonymous peer-review in specialized areas of physics. From general perspective (which I always recommend to consider at the first place) anonymous collectivistic approach leads to the lost of personal motivation (which lead to the fall of communism, BTW) and it slows down generation of new ideas. While too individualistic approach fragments science and it slows down acceptation of new ideas.

In addition, there is always bias given by fact, if we choose reviewer, whose scope of interests overlaps with scope of interest of author, it becomes biased due the possible conflict of interest or existence of personal coalition.

If we separate the scope of interests, we increase risk of incompetence of reviewer. This risk is the more pronounced, the more science becomes specialized - which effectively means, above some critical density of information peer-review process isn't effective anymore.

Now we are dealing with two dimensional matrix handling distance of scope of interest and anonymity of peer-review process. The possible solution is to add time dimension into matrix and to make whole process as transparent, as possible ex post. In my opinion the most effective approach would be to keep peer-review as blind, as possible. BUT after publishing of article, it's peer-review should become available together with names of reviewers.

Of course, here's an apparent limit in density of information again and from long term perspective, every source of information should be published with minimal delay despite the result of peer review.

neděle 2. srpna 2009

Higgs boson and Uroboros model of Universe

Uroboros is an ancient archetypal model of Universe related to implicit surfaces of topology, the Mobius strip and Klein bottle topology of holographic model of Universe in particular, which manifests at many levels of observable reality. In AWT it follows from geometry of causal energy spreading in transversal waves through nested Aether foam, where the same energy mediates both bulk volume properties, both surface properties of the same object. For example, if we get close to black hole, during passing its event horizon we would see, how previous universe generation has collapsed into many black hole horizon behind our spin and interior of black hole now appears like observable generation of universe with many black holes inside, the direct observation of black holes can therefore serve as an observational evidence of Uroboros geometry at cosmological scale.

The same geometry we can met with many dualities in human society, for example in mutual convergence of extreme leftwind and rigtwind ideas, as practiced by NDSAP party in Nazi Germany or bolshevist party in former Soviet Union, where employees got the same social status like their employers, at least proclamativelly. At Planck level scale the Uroboros model manifests in various supersymmetry phenomena, which follows from AdS/CFT correspondence (Mobius strip structure of electron and other spin 1/2 particles in particular) and in E8xE8 heterosis of Platonic solids, which can serve as 3D geometric models of causal dynamic triangulation of Aether foam (Lorentz/Wick rotation leads to isomorphism of root vector system of E8 Lie group in 3D, as Lisi Garret demonstrated).

Interesting consequence of T-duality in Uroboros model is isomorphism of most heavy/lightweight fermions and their supersymmetric bosons, the top quarks and Higgs boson in particular. From Standard model follows, the product of Higgs boson Yukawa coupling to the left- and right-handed top quarks have same rest mass (173.1±1.3 GeV/c2) and dilepton channel of decay and they're virtually indistinguishable each other. While top quark was observed in 1995 by the CDF and DØ experiments at Fermilab, it has no meaning to search for Higgs anymore at the moment, when bare top quark decay was identified (if something looks like a Higgs, walks like a Higgs, and quacks like a Higgs, it's just a product of top quark dilepton decay). In this point last bet of prof. Hawking that LHC won't find Higgs boson is dual to my conclusion, Higgs was observed already.

The more detailed interpretation of Higgs boson in AWT is difficult, because Higgs mechanism isn't primarily responsible for rest mass of particles in AWT. Higgs mechanism for giving mass to particles was actually first proposed in the context of solid state physics to explain how particle-like structures in metals can act as if they had an effective mass and it explains temperature dependence of conductivity in transition metals and semiconductors.

In particle physics, though, Higgs argument is designed to introduce the masses of the gauge bosons by a spontaneous breaking of the gauge symmetry of an additional field, the Higgs field. Of course this mechanism is a conceptually different from the way, in which condensate droplets of every particle environment are obtaining mass. And it has nothing to do with superconductivity also, as it takes place at room temperature, too. If Anderson–Higgs mechanism is related to background field in superconductivity such effect shouldn't be called a Higgs mechanism anymore - or we simply get two different kinds of Higgs bosons. Even worse, the technical derivation of the Higgs mechanism, consists in a mere reshuffling of degrees of freedom by transforming the Higgs Lagrangian in a gauge-invariant manner. This already raises serious doubts about the adequacy of the entire manoeuvre, since gauge transformations possess no real instantiations and no straightforward interpretation of the Higgs mechanism is tenable. IMO physicists are just mixing various concepts and mechanisms mutually at each level of physical model from phenomenological to formal one. Furthemore, a well known "hiearchy problem" implies, that quantum corrections can make the mass of the Higgs particle arbitrarily large, since virtual particles with arbitrarily large energies are allowed in quantum mechanics.

The case, when scientists are looking for phenomena, which is known for years already - just from opposite side - isn't new at all in context of AWT. For example the search for gravitational waves (CMB radiation), supersymmetry (observation of tetraneutron, pentaquark, dimuon event and other phenomena) Lorentz symmetry violation (gravitational lensing, GZK limit and other phenomena) or evidence of hidden dimensions (Casimir force and related phenomena) is the situation of the same category. For scientists is quite normal to search for violation of relativity by quantum mechanics and vice versa, while they're know already, these theories are inconsistent mutually up to level, their predictions differs in two hundred orders of magnitude.

Such situation just reflects the level of conceptual confusion, which penetrates whole contemporary physics. But we should realize, scientists as such have no strong motivation to solve contemporary situation, on the contrary - confusion enables them to keep their information monopoly, to broaden their RE-search and to ask money for another grants from taxes - only layman society is who is paying here. I suppose, such situation would appear unbelievable for our descendants - but this is exactly the situation, we are experiencing by now. Scientists are shamans of modern era and they're eating their own tails by such ignorant approach.

středa 22. července 2009

AWT and principle of uncertainty principle

This post was motivated by recent confrontation between Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and Cambridge cops, who were condemned last night by President Barack Obama for acting "stupidly" in arresting the African-American scholar. I personally found the stance of all people involved as somewhat unlucky, because it illustrates emergent character of many serious situations, resultig from high number of small, if not predictable mistakes. By AWT every object of reality is composed of nested density fluctuations and it has a fuzzy character, so we can always observe and interpret things from at least two perspectives: the inner (insintric) and outer (exsintric) one. This is why we are saying, there are two sides to every story and the truth often lies somewhere in between...

For example, we can observe gravitational lensing from outside from place, where space-time is flat, so you will see the path of light curved and Lorentz symmetry violated (quantum mechanics perspective). Or when we stay inside of gravity lens or in Lagrange point, we will become bended by gravity field together with space-time, so you will see the path of light straight and the space-time curved, instead - this is general relativity perspective. It's evident, these perspectives are mutually exclusive, so we can never reconcile relativity with quantum mechanics by using of formal approach, which combines postulates of both theories (like string theory or quantum gravity) and to save money of tax payers for its development.

The main source of uncertainty here is, with compare to above picture every gravity field / lens has a fuzzy boundary, so we can never see the gravitational lensing from single perspective only and your observation remains fuzzy as well. Only pin-point observer can see all things from exsintric (outer) perspective only. Because every real observer is of finite size and it suffers by quantum delocalization, he can observe the same effect or artifact both from inside, both from outside perspective. The mixture of both these perspectives results into insintric uncertainty of every reality observation.

We can use surface wave analogy here, which is more convenient with Aether concept of particle environment. At the water surface every information always comes in two parallel ways: in form of longitudinal (underwater) waves and surface waves, which are of transversal nature. The pure transversal waves are called capillary waves, these pure longitudinal waves are called gravity waves (do not confuse it with gravitational waves, which are of longitudinal character too, but they're spreading through vacuum).

In real case, the surface waves are always of mixed character, which we are calling Rayleigh or Love waves, depending on whether longitudinal or transversal character of the wave prevails. Despite the weakness of underwater waves, this results in quantum uncertainty of every information, which comes to observer at water surface in two independent ways: via surface and underwater waves.

Despite of their insintric character, we cannot exclude surface wave from observation so easily, because energy is spreading in slowest speed at the inflexion point of (water) density gradient, which is forming water surface, thus defining the largest space-time possible ("a cosmic space") for observer, so he can exists in it. As we can see, uncertainty principle is direct manifestation of Lorentz symmetry violation, hidden dimensions and multiple time arrows. Here's no need to spend another money in expensive, but silly (re)search of these artifacts, until we are convenient with existence of quantum uncertainty and AWT approach. AWT can save a lotta money for tax payers here again - but from the very same reason scientists involved aren't very happy about it, because from their insintric perspective such search still has a good meaning.

We can met with uncertainty principle in many places of everyday reality at the moment, when insintric perspective remains mixed with insintric one, as expressed in many proverbs and fables (Mark Twain: "There are two sides of every coin"). When someone describes an accident in real life, he always describes it from perspective of person, which was involved in it, or from perspective of independent remote observer. At the moment, when some persons was both reason, both victim of this accident, their stance becomes fuzzy undeniably.

For example, Germans or Soviet Union nations were both reasons, both victims of WWW II, so their stance to this even remains fuzzy and controversial. As the result, both Russia, both Germany are claiming, the weakest country involved in conflict, i.e. Poland was the true reason of WWW II, which is simply ridiculous - but it illustrates the way, in which uncertainty principle manifest itself in human society.

Here exists an insintric duality between most general and most exact views of reality. Currently it seems, AWT is most general one - but definitely not the best, when it goes to exact numbers. From the same reason, we don't use quantum mechanics for computation of boiling point of water under reduced pressure, but we are using a more specific extrapolations based on thermodynamics. Not because the quantum mechanics couldn't handle it in ab-initio calculations, but because such calculation would be more tedious and sensitive to introductory parameters. Due the uncertainty principle we cannot expect true "theory of everything" and every theory has it's own applicability scope, corresponding to observable part of Universe.

Principle of uncertainty manifests by duality between quantitative and qualitative understanding of reality. Exact theories (like string theory or LQG theory) are poorly conditioned, so they lead into fuzzy landscapes of althernative solutions, whereas these qualitative ones (like AWT) doesn't suffer internal inconsistencies, but they can predict phenomena with limited exactness at the price.

Aesop: "Every truth has two sides; it is as well to look at both, before we commit ourselves to either".

úterý 21. července 2009

AWT and metamaterial character of vacuum

The modeling of vacuum by light spreading through material environment isn't completely new here. For example the recent experimental work demonstrated by sending of ultrashort pulses into foamy structure of optical fibers the blue-shifting of light at a white-hole horizon. Recently whole area of physics named transformation optics was established on analogy of physics of vacuum in gravity field to spreading of waves in media of variable refraction index (which was one of Einstein's "refractive approaches" to gravitational light bending and general relativity, by the way).

Metamaterial character of vacuum was proposed before two years and recent publication described the way, how to model structures like gravitational lensing, strange attractors, streaks of dark matter, photon sphere or event horizons of black holes by infrared waves spreading through porous GaInAsP metamaterial sponge. In context of existing theories these analogies are rather ad-hoced, but they've deep meaning in context of AWT, which describes vacuum as a dense system of particles, composed of nested fluctuations, which are having structure of fractal sponge or foam. Therefore the metamaterial nature of vacuum belongs between significant predictions of AWT.

The understanding the role of foamy structure of vacuum fluctuations (as manifested by CMB radiation, soliton character of gamma bursts or ZP energy) in metamaterial character of vacuum is quite easy, if we consider Aether concept. In inhomogeneous environment so called Rayleigh dispersion occurs, whenever the positive surface curvature of density fluctuations prevails. In such system the waves are dispersed (absorbed and refracted) the more, the shorter is their wavelength, because short waves cannot avoid obstacles so easily. From this reason both the absorption coefficient, both the refracting index of environment increases with increasing frequency of radiation - this is so called normal dispersion.

The materials with negative curvature fluctuations of Emental cheese structure are less common, but in such environment the relation of absorption and refraction curve is exactly as opposite, because in such environment the refraction index decreases with increasing frequency with compare to absorption, so we are talking about "anomalous dispersion" here.

The absorption and dispersion curves are mutually related by Kramers-Kronig relations, by which absorption curve (bulk effect) is the first derivation of dispersion curve (i.e. the surface refraction effect), because in environment modeled by spherical particle fluctuations the surface of sphere is first derivation of sphere volume with respect to radius. In vacuum environment the absorption and dispersion curve of electric and magnetic waves corresponds the real and imaginary portion of complex quantities called permitivity and permeability of vacuum, accordingly.

With respect to space-time definition the negative portion of dispersion curve close to inflection point is most significant (compare the red point on the dispersion curve above), because for such frequency the energy spreads in slowest speed possible, so that the space-time appears most huge from insintric perspective here. Such environment has a structure of foam, where positive curvature of density fluctuations remains balanced by negative curvature of holes, but not quite - from this the symmetry violation of vacuum foam follows and the environment behaves like metamaterial of negative refraction index, whenever the imaginary portion of both permeability, both permitivity remains negative. We can say, vacuum behaves like metamaterial just because it's so huge due the presence of large amount of density fluctuations, so we can model phenomena like dark matter streaks, photons and event horizon of black holes by light spreading through metamaterials of foamy structure (compare the simulation bellow).

With compare to solid state metamaterials vacuum is composed of fractal foam of density fluctuations similar to Perlin octal noise, because Aether is behaving like elastic fluid filled/formed by its vortices and the diameter of vortices is indirectly proportional to frequency of wave perturbations. This leads to metamaterial character of vacuum in broad range of wavelengths, until we use transversal waves of minimal exsintric speed for observation. Because metamaterial focuses wave into solitary wave packets (i.e. bosons), we can see the distant stars like pin-point objects without dispersion in broad range of spectrum from infrared to X-ray range of EM wave spectrum.

From general perspective, the normal and anomalous dispersion should be symmetric phenomena. The usage of word "normal" in this context is anthropocentric, because it's based on the fact, human creatures are formed by density fluctuations of arbitrarily positive curvature (i.e. by particles in common sense), so we can interact with particle fields more often and easily, then with fluctuations of negative curvature. Inside of atom structures the positive and negative curvature of electron orbitals remains balanced, so we can observe both absorbance peaks, both transmittance peaks with the same probability there.

sobota 18. července 2009

Preprint servers and string theory evolution

Server arXiv.org is a vast online repository of physics papers, most of which are uploaded before they have passed muster by refereeing. Recently, increasing amount of scientists, testified that none of their papers are accepted and others are forcibly recategorized by the administrators of the arXiv either due to the controversial nature of their work, or it not being canonical to string theory, in what amounts to intellectual censorship. We should realize, the main (if not the only reason) of preprint servers is to maintain priority of scientific work - without it all ideas could be presented in private blogs for the sake of recency without problems. From these and possibly another reasons (1, 2) a viXra.org portal has been launched recently by "independent physicist" Phil Gibbs as a functional alternative to arXiv.org.

What happened here? The following lines are illustrating my private understanding of the whole story at general level from exsintric perspective of outer observer:

Because string theory was never accepted by mainstream in its entirety due the "lack of falsifiability", string theorists have started to use arXiv portal as their alternative publishing platform like squatters, thus by-passing standard process of peer-review of mainstream physics. They claimed on public, the dynamic character of string theory development requires faster public exchange of ideas, then the standard peer-review process can provide. Now string theory is forty years old theory (like "..old woman wearing way too much lipstick.." by Robert B. Laughlin) and arXiv server was always considered as an alternative publishing platform, especially by mainstream peer-reviewed journals (Science or Nature journals in particular), which were often hostile to preliminary publishing of scientific articles from apparent "conflict of interests" reasons (1, 2, 3).

As the result, former squatters have begun to consider arXiv server as their native or even private publishing platform and they started to displace proponents of another alternative theories by general paradigm "young anarchists - old conservatives". It's significant, well known proponent of string theory Lubos Motl is both opponent of squatters, both opponent of viXra.org due the "lack of credibility" by now - i.e. from the very same reason, from which string theorists were forced to publish their work on arXiv server before some time - although squatting chaos corresponds well the conceptual chaos of string theories and Mr. Motl himself was in strong opposition to mainstream (Google translation) represented by Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic in his young age.

Now we can observe formation of new opposition and we can expect, whenever such alternative becomes significant, a new independent publishing group will be established on its base - and so on.. Such evolution is quite common in social groups and it fits the AWT model of nested condensation of Aether particles well - so we can consider it as easily predictable in AWT context. While we should appreciate the responsibility, rigorousness and acuracy of formal approach represented by string theory, we shouldn't overlook the conceptual vagueness of this approach based on internal inconsistency of postulates and the lack of understanding of subject at general level. Instead of it, Aether concept is based on deep insintric plurality of concepts and mainstream scientists, some string theorists in particular should learn plurality in thinking by now. From this perspective, formation of vi@Xra server is the first step in this direction.

neděle 12. července 2009

Aether based explanation of dark matter

Before month I listed four explanations of dark matter, which are plural from AWT perspective:
  1. consequence of limited light speed spreading through expanding space-time
  2. surface tension effect of bell curve shaped gravity field
  3. application of mass-energy equivalence to Einstein field equation
  4. result of variable surface/volume ratio to energy spreading by principle of least action
But we can use even more illustrative explanation, linked to dispersion of energy by background field of CMB photons formed by gravitational waves (GWs), which manifests like weak deceleration equivalent to product of Hubble constant and speed of light. This dispersion is direct manifestation of hidden dimensions on both large scales, both small scales, because it manifests as a shielding effect of these photons at Casimir force distance scale. We can say, Casimir force is a shielding effect of GWs, whereas the Pioneer anomaly is subtle deceleration effect caused by dispersion by GWs. Both these forces results in violation of Newton law at small scales, which manifests itself by anomalous deceleration at large scales and as such it violates the equivalence principle of general relativity - it's as easy, as it is.

We can even find a direct analogy of this deceleration in our "pocket model" of observable Universe at water surface. From local perspective of every observer, whose size is evolutionary adjusted to wavelength of capillary waves (human distance scale) such surface is covered mostly by transversal waves, where the energy spreads in maximal speed from his insintric perspective, so he can interact with largest space-time possible (the speed of transversal waves is minimal from exsintric perspective, instead).

But the particle character of water environment manifests by dispersion of surface waves by tiny density fluctuations of underwater, which results into gradual change of transversal character of capillary waves into longitudinal one (i.e. into gravity waves). This dispersion decreases the speed of waves from exsintric perspective, which manifests like omni directional Universe expansion from insintric perspective or like subtle deceleration, which effectively freezes the spreading of surface waves, which can be interpreted like spreading of these waves in environment of gradually increasing density. We can observe this effect easily by splash ripples, formed by capillary waves. On the example bellow such waves are formed by bursting of bubbles at water surface, which can be interpreted like radiative decay of unstable particle in vacuum into gamma photons. By this interpretation dark matter effects, like Pioneer anomaly are related closely to the Universe expansion: for example the anomalous deceleration of Pioneer spacecraft (0.87 ± 0.13 nm/s2) is equal to product of Hubble constant and speed of light (a = Hc), which agrees well (±10% error) with value observed.

From this perspective every object is surrounded by virtual massive field which originates from massive field of virtual photons, i.e. the field of density fluctuations, which are manifesting in GWs formed by gravitons expanded by inflation and which is forming vacuum foam - and in this context it's quite natural and easily predictable effect following from AWT directly. Just the immense density of vacuum and common disbelief in Aether concept has caused, the effect of background field dispersion wasn't linked to dark matter observations and Pioneer anomaly before many years. Here's still plenty of room "at the bottom" of basic human understanding. Note that in this context the further search for GWs has no meaning, because we have observed them already like background noise of GWs detectors and their scope is limited by Casimir force scope in the same way, like scope of extradimensions and Lorentz symmetry violation at low scale.

As J.C. Cranwell (archive) pointed out, prof. Stephen Hawking has blundered by his own image... This picture comes from his book "A briefer history of time" at page 29 and it illustrates the energy wave spreading in particle environment. It's easy to see the waves getting further apart from each other as time increase, while Hawking is still claiming, the Lorentz invariance is "difficult to reconcile" with Newton theory. Of course it is, because it leads not only into Lorentz invariance, but into dark matter and expanding universe observations. This example just illustrates, how everyone sees, what he wants to see and Hawking the physmatic sees waves of constant wavelength in picture, which illustrates exactly the opposite.

Albert Einstein "You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."

pátek 10. července 2009

List of censors

Bellow you can find a list of sites, from where I was banned at least five times in sequence. This list is of informative purposes only and it will be updated gradually.


"...They can't help it. Some people are just born with a lack of oxygen..."

Science and philosophy

This post is motivated by recent essay "What Is Science" of Mrs. Helen Quinn (former president of the APS), which was published in the July 2009 issue of Physics Today (via ZapperZ) and discussed here and which pregnantly distinguishes subject of science from philosophy by single sentence:

"Religion and philosophy are interested in reasons and purposes, but science cares only about mechanisms."

Such definition has a deep meaning in AWT, because contemporary science is based on consecutive logics of formal math, which is strictly atemporal, which effectively means, that this logics can be reproduced any time without change. This gives math the power of general language for logical and exact communication. We cannot define and share our ideas exactly, until we are express them in predicate logics and symbolic language of formal math (Feynman: "Shut up and calculate!"). But from Gödel theorems follows, even the most strict / limited axiomatic system can lead to uncertain conclusions about reality and this finding has a good meaning in implicate geometry of AWT.

From more general perspective formal view remains quite limited, because it operates in space dimension only, not time dimension and consecutive logics is strictly single time arrow based. So we can call the science "a philosophy of locality" or "atemporal philosophy", which leads to sort of conceptual opportunism or even hypocrisy, because due its strictly local character their proponents often didn't realize, their stance changes in time and/or it doesn't fit exactly their well minded, but more general ideas due the lack of personal feedback, which always requires wider, nonlocal perspective. Just because our mind can operate in wider concept, we can ask for mechanism in time dimension, so we can even ask "philosophical" questions about reasons and consequences and these questions even remains fully motivated from fractally nested perspective of implicate order. The question "WHY?" about causality isn't less important here, then the descriptive question "HOW?"

In AWT the interactions along time dimensions leads to quantum fuzziness and chaos on both small scale of details, both on large scale (the fuzziness of vague answers about very general questions) and this character can be modeled by spreading of waves at water surface. Therefore the fuzzy character of philosophy is quite predictable and it goes as the price for its universality - it's not a manifestation of intellectual laziness or incompetence of philosophers or something similar.

Therefore from AWT follows, the excessive usage of strictly formal approach leads to fuzziness at small scale (extensive landscapes of string theory and quantum gravity solutions as an example) and to separation from reality in similar way, like overly philosophical approach. A formally thinking theorist cannot explain things in intuitive way even if such explanation becomes quite simple (for example explanation of Lorentz invariance or string concept by density fluctuations of particle environment). In Weinberg's essay it is explained, why the main doctrine of positivism is wrong - if taken strictly - and why it has slowed down science in the past. And vice-versa: a philosophical mind cannot postulate formal description of phenomena even at the case, such description becomes quite simple (the derivation of parabolic equation of free fall as an example).

Both approaches have their predictability power, therefore the strategy of highest fitness from evolutionary perspective is usually based on balanced equilibrium of both intuitive, both formal approach, while the intuitive approach usually goes first and the formal one finalizes intuitive ideas in reproducible manner, which can be exchanged freely without lost of information.