čtvrtek 16. dubna 2009

Does string theory link the ultracold with the superhot?

This post is a reaction to popular ScienceNews article about approach of string theory to duality observed inside of quark-gluon condensate, which author Tom Siegfried interprets as a "first testable prediction" of string theory. At first, it's not first testable prediction of string theory at all. String theory has made a number of testable predictions already (cosmic strings, primordial black holes, etc..) - they were just kept in quiet, simply because they weren't confirmed by experiments (1, 2), in which Casimir force was ignored as a gravity force in hidden dimensions.

Under normal situation such theory would be considered disproved already by common criterions of Popper's methodology - but this is indeed not a case of string theory, where too many important people and their money are involved. Nevertheless, even if we admit, Mr. Siegfried is right, string theory approach to description of quark-gluon condensate is just an ex-post interpretation, because the formation of quark-gluon condensate was observed before six years already at RHIC. By another words, it's a fabrication of predictability, which didn't exist before six years. With such approach we can say as well, constant speed of light or wave nature of light belongs the predictions of Aether theory, because Aether concept has existed a well before, it was ever used for interpretation of light spreading, predictions the more. But such manipulation of history isn't apparently enough for some string theory proponents.

By blog post of Lubos Motl, when experimenters studied the quark-gluon plasma formed by collisions of colliding golden nuclei, they "thought it would have to behave as a gas or plasma". The truth is, they didn't, of course - it's not so trivial to prove the formation of quark-gluon condensate (which is an original prediction of Quantum chromodynamics, in fact) in collider experiments and the experimental proof must be carefully planned and prepared in advance - so we should know, what to measure first. It was observed, that the material behaved as a superfluid, despite a trillion of degrees Celsius - which is what, these experiments were planned for. By Lubos, string theorists "already knew, why this thing would be observed" - the only problem is, they were pretty quiet about it before six years (or even ten years, when these experiments were planned actually). Just now some of them have realized suddenly, RHIC results may be interpreted by string theory - which is apparently not, what Mr. Motl wanted to say about it.

Well, the most crucial problem is, it's virtually impossible to explain this behavior by assumption, particles are formed by 1D strings. If you don't trust me, just try to reproduce the string theory based explanation for yourself in reproducible sequence of logical steps. If we cannot do it in logical way, it's apparent, we cannot derive it in formal math way either, because formal math is based on predicate logic - not vice-versa. After then we can say: sorry, but our stance is based on pure religion - no less, no more. While some connection between dualities of string theory and dual behavior of quark-gluon condensate may definitely exist here, the awareness of such connection isn't still a evidence of it, simply because we can expect, inside of our universe everything is connected with everything due the correspondence principle and general causal time arrow.

Fortunately, it's quite trivial to expect the superfluous behavior of quark-gluon condensate in simple and straightforward way without string theory - or even without Standard model - which is why these experiments were made, after all. When these particles are compressed, their repulsive forces will compensate mutually, which effectively leads into free chaotic motion of particles inside of droplet, i.e. into superfluous boson condensate state. And this is a quite common behavior, which is used for example for high pressure shaping of metals or in cumulative warheads, like bazooka, and nothing very surprising is about it - it's an explanation based on classical Newtonian mechanics. If nothing else, every more complex explanation is irrelevant here due the Occam's razor criterion ("pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate"). In fact, the formation of superfluid inside of dense particle clusters is one of many trivial predictions of Aether theory - as every little child can understand immediately.

We are facing a too many lies and misinterpretations in this particular case, don't you think? The whole story follows from predictable situation, when after some forty years of development, string theory needs some testable results desperately. Therefore the ScienceNews article is a typical example of fabrication of success of troublesome theory, which doesn't exist in fact. Even more serious problem is, such approach is amoral, as it introduces a religious stance for whole rest of society, which is manipulated in this way. All these article readers are forced to believe in interpretation, which doesn't understand at all - while the most trivial explanation is covered just for easier life of some limited group of people. Which is basically, what every theology was designed for.

And that's the memo.

8 komentářů:

  1. Hi Zephir,

    Very good post. I am glad that you have again taken up the blog about AWT, after some long years of inactivity. And I'm glad because, the laymen demand free thinkers, like you, that can freely convey their opinions without censorship.

    Siegfried is right, string theory approach to description of quark-gluon condensate is just an ex-post interpretation, because the formation of quark-gluon condensate was observed before six years already at RHIC.

    You are right, surely the string theorist can't make the calculations with enough accuracy to predict or postdict anything, because:

    1 There is no known string theory living in the bulk that is dual to the QCD.
    2 Although one day, the string theorists discovered such theory, probably, math will be too complex to do precise calculations
    3 No one knows what is string theory. There are not a main principle (or master equation) to derive all theory by means of logical reasoning. Even Witten don't know what is string theory.

    In Wikipedia entry about AdS/QCD is wrote:

    some QCD experts such as Frank Wilczek remain skeptical whether or not this program may lead to quantitative, accurate predictions that can't be extracted from QCD itself.

    Hence, Zephir, when you wrote:

    ... quark-gluon condensate (which is an original prediction of Quantum chromodynamics, in fact) ...

    you're are absolutely right.

    The string theorists are urgently needing to make experimental predictions, because after 40 years, they must justify their work. Don't forget, that many of the best string theorists took the best positions in the academia at the best universities. The fear for lost their positions, or not get good jobs for their doctoral students, is the true problem for them.

  2. Pure hard hype video promoting the theory of nothing HAHAHA... .

    Via Lubos Motl.

  3. /*...no one knows what is string theory... */
    Every theory is defined by its postulate set. But I've never met with such list of postulates at the case of string theory. By such way, string theory can become literally whatever theory, even AWT or LQG - it's a bunch of math recipes, rather then theory.

    This is a consequence of formal approach of modern physics, which doesn't care about logical arrangement of things. But this formal approach is not limited just for string theory, it's just most apparent in it.

  4. Gravity Limits Link Ultracold And Superhot,
    Our Inability To Create Singularity

    A. From "Strings Link the Ultracold with the Superhot"
    Perfect liquids suggest theory’s math mirrors something real

    "When the universe was very young, and still superhot from the aftermath of the Big Bang, plasma should have been the only state of matter around. And that’s what scientists at Brookhaven expected to see when they smashed gold ions together at 99.99 percent of the speed of light using a machine called RHIC (for Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider). RHIC physicists thought the ion collisions would melt the gold’s protons and neutrons into a hot plasma of quarks and gluons at a temperature of a trillion kelvins, replicating conditions similar to those a microsecond after the birth of the universe. But instead of a gaslike plasma, the physicists reported in 2005, RHIC served up a hot quark soup, behaving more like a liquid than a plasma or gas."

    B. The expectation of Brookhaven scientists was a bit unrealistic

    The "aftermath of the Big Bang" lasted much less than 10^-35 seconds. This is evidenced by the fact that "Gravity Is THE Manifestation Of The Onset Of Cosmic Inflation Cataclysm" :


    With all respect due to the scientists at Brookhaven it is very difficult to expect that they can recreate the state of pre big-bang energy-mass singularity.

    Commonsense is still the best scientific approach.

    Respectfully suggesting,

    Dov Henis
    (Comments From The 22nd Century)
    EVOLUTION Beyond Darwin 200

    Commonsensible PS To
    Gravity Limits Link Ultracold And Superhot,
    Our Inability To Create Singularity

    A. From "Strings Link the Ultracold with the Superhot"

    A new truth always has to contend with many difficulties,” the German physicist Max Planck said decades ago. “If it were not so, it would have been discovered much sooner.”

    B. IMO gravity is attempted reversal of inflation

    To me, a simple uninformed one, E=mc^2 is a derived formula, whereas E=Total[m(1 + D)] is a commonsensical descriptive concept.

    I intuitively regard both the ultracold and superhot liquids as being in a confined space and "striving but unable" to overcome D, to render D=0.

    I also intuitively regard accelerated collisions smashups as attempted "reverse inflations" in the sense that Newton's law of universal gravitation seems to me as "reverse inflation".

    Dov Henis
    (Comments From The 22nd Century)

  5. HAHAHA...Zeph Cut it!

  6. Anonymous, to criticise is very easy, doing physics is very hard, so, you should expose your ideas or you should shut up.

  7. Hi Zephir,

    As someone who would like to change physics, it seems to me that you are taking a different way than Newton or Einstein.

    Both of these did three things that made a difference. First, they both had both qualitative and quantitative explainations of observations (e.g. motion of planets, photoelectric effect, orbit of Mercury) that were did not fit the physics of the time. Second, they both made quantitative predictions of observations that had not yet been made (e.g. bending of light of a star during an eclipse, conversion of mass into energy). Third, both concentrated on the physics, not on the sociology of physicists.

    It seems to me (after reading a lot of your previous material) that you are focusing on what is wrong with current theories instead of what new physics can be obtained from your theory. Please tell us of a new observation that your theory predicts and how your theory quantitatively explains something not well explained by current theory, e.g. the velocity of stars in a spiral galaxy, or the too fast expansion of the universe.

    A new source of useful energy would be a good place to start, if AWT is up to the task.


  8. Hi William,

    at first, I don't expect/want to change physics (only). AWT is general concept of multiparticle environment and many ideas of AWT can be illustrated just by social interactions in human society.

    At second - to demonstrate, how my theory explains something better, then other theories I should explain first, why the other theory fails in such explanation, because many people are believing, the application of some numeric regression is an explanation. If we haven't logical explanation of phenomena, we cannot DERIVE the formal model of it in deterministic, reproducible way.

    This is the mistake, which both Newton, both Einstein did - they made many brilliant regressions of reality for physicist - but they "forgot" to explain it the rest of people. In particular, Newton's gravity law is guessed by the same way, like the postulate of constant speed of light.

    Can you explain, why these postulates are valid? If not, then the AWT is for you - but don't expect, formal math will help you in explanation of nonformal concepts. At the moment, when you can use inverse square law both for Coulomb force both for gravity force, it's evident, the formal math is invariant to both these phenomena.

    P.S. Why do you think, our Universe expands "too fast"? I can feel quite comfortably with its speed by now.


Poznámka: Komentáře mohou přidávat pouze členové tohoto blogu.