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.

AWT and collective guilt

Recently I've read about case of web executive working for TF1, Europe's largest TV network, who sent an email to his Member of Parliament opposing the government's law proposal of Internet disconnections for those who repeatedly infringe online copyrights. His MP forwarded the email to the minister, who forwarded it to TF1. The author of the email soon received a letter saying he is fired for "strong differences with the company's strategy" in a private email sent from a private address (French corporations and government are entangled in ways that people in other countries might find unfamiliar). The point was, MP people were passing the e-mail along for informational purposes reportedly - though if that were true, one wonders, why the identifying information wasn't stripped out of the message. No one "meant" for this to happen - but happened it has, anyway - just because of careless approach of responsible people chaining the sensitive information, which was supported by their own biased stance.

The above case reopens the question of collective guilt. This is subconsciouses emotional reaction, that results among a group of individuals, when it is perceived that the group illegitimately harmed another people. It just illustrates, how sensitive indicator of morality our conscience is - especially in western society, which is "guilt-based" rather then "shame-based". By AWT such morality becomes a manifestation of emergent phenomena in system, when only slightly biased stance of individual components may lead to the fatal results and phase transforms. We can illustrate this situation by large group of people, waiting for opening of discount shop. Even though every member of crowd exerts only weak force to its neighbors, some of people at the head of crowd will get trampled by this crowd.

AWT explains emergence of such action inside of multiparticle field by the assumption, every system of finite sized consists of large number of particles, circumscribed by their surface density gradient, which is manifestation of internal spin in hidden dimensions. In space with even number of spatial dimensions the particle spin is compensated by the same way, like the mutual motion of particles, because of lack of chirality of such system.

But in 3D the situation becomes different. The translation momentum of particles remains compensated at the sufficient distance, whereas the momentum of their internal motion (i.e. the spin) not. Such system behaves like spin field of cellular domains, analogous to Weiss domains of ferromagnetic material. Due the nonzero surface curvature of individual particles the resulting spin of whole system will remain always unbalanced and it undergoes so called spontaneous symmetry breaking. This is because of hairy ball theorem, which states, that there is no nonvanishing continuous tangent vector field on the sphere ("you can't comb a hairy ball flat without creating a cowlick"). From this reason a field formed by system of 3D spherical particles would always exhibit a nonzero vorticity, which would cumulate with distance and it manifest itself in lattice of vorticity cells at the distance. Which basically means, we cannot have a 3D space without black holes separated at distance in less or more regular domains. This is the reason, why our space-time appears filled by black holes even at the most distant view of Hubble ultradepth field without apparent limit. Just the existence of space-time in limited numbers of dimensions is the reason, why its symmetry becomes violated in presence of many higher dimensions undeniably.

The principle of collective guilt has its practical application at the case of particle physics, when mainstream physics insists on safety of LHC experiments , although official safety analysis ignores many apparent risky factors because of biased stance of mainstream physics toward LHC. The subtle bias of physical community can lead to the same result, like carefully planned conspirative activity of mad terrorist just because of cumulative effect of individual ignorance. As another case can serve the politically motivated refusal of Aether theory at the beginning of 20th century, the rise of Nazi party and Nazism in Germany before WW II or the blind adherence to peer review principles, which has lead to ignorance of cold fusion or antigravity experiments. The memo is, we should never underestimate collective ignorance, when more individuals are involved without public feedback by Czech proverb: "A hundred times nothing killed the donkey".

AWT, emergence and particle - unparticle duality

This post is a reaction to two recent articles (1, 2) from HEP arXiv section (via KFC's blog), which are illustrating conceptual problems of formal approach of mainstream physics clearly.

These article quoted lacks the definition of emergence, duality, particle and unparticle concepts too much to be able to claim the things like "particles are dual to unparticles" or "quantum mechanics is of emergent nature" reliably. By my opinion it's even impossible to propose relevant formal description of concepts without robust definition of them at the semantic level. Without it no formal derivation can be interpreted and used by another theories. By AWT Universe is formed by infinitely dense environment, the observability of which corresponds the system of nested density fluctuations inside of dense gas (a condensing supercritical fluid in particular).



By AWT, our Universe could appear like fractal cloud similar to Perlin noise and after then every particle or artifact inside of our Universe becomes a sort of unparticle, observed from perspective of another one. This perspective introduces a sort of causality into chaotic view of our Universe, because only causal gradients (a “particles”) is what we can observe from this chaos.

Double relativity (DR) is based on dynamical relationship of two systems of reference: when one system of reference has been immobilized, it temporarily becomes an absolute point of reference. In this moment, at least two cases of DR were proposed so far, based on de Sitter and Poincaré invariant space-time group accordingly. Poincaré spacetime group appears slightly less general, being based on Lorentz symmetry of special relativity, while de Sitter spacetime group relies to equivalence principle of general relativity.

Therefore I still don’t see any evidence for particle - unparticle duality here: particles are always a subset of unparticles by DR, not a dual representation of it. And if it appears so from perspective of DR, then the DR is demonstrating its limits in this point, which is probably given by fact, it's a formal theory and the particle - unparticle duality is relevant for infinitely dense particle field, i.e. singular case of every formal theory. By AWT only infinitely implicit ("fractal") theory can become an equivalent of infinitely dense Aether and/or abstract unparticle model. This leads to requirement of triple, quadruple,... etc. relativity naturally. Only {inside of such/exsintric perspective of} "infinite relativity" the particle and unparticle models can become dual completely.

Second article suffers by similar causal problem, because by its name quantum mechanics can be virtually everything, until we define, what the “Emergent Phenomenon” really is. By AWT every “deeper level dynamics” is nothing else, then the particle dynamics of in many other deeper levels of particle fluctuations, i.e. the unparticle dynamics. Therefore unparticle geometrodynamics appears like best way, how to formalize emergence concept. But because it wasn't formalized yet, we cannot use it for derivation of any testable conclusions, predictions the less. Without predictions every article about "emergent physics" becomes just a metaphysics based on formal math up to level, we can talk about duality of rigor and postmodern philosophy. This is because the predictability of both formal, both nonformal hypothesis vanishes mutually and ceases to zero with increasing scope. Nonformal approach of philosophy becomes a quite powerful tool there, because both philosophy, both formal math is based on predicate logics.

Mainstream science uses positivist approach very often from pragmatic reasons by the same way, like medicinemans of ancient era have used their tools to keep their significance in the eyes of the rest of society. It handles the phenomena by formal way of various regression of reality without worrying, whether they're valid at the robust logics level - i.e. whether they're not an apparent nonsense, to say it by less diplomatic way. Such approach is analogous to epicycle solution of conceptual problems of geocentric model and it corresponds to solving of homework assignation without understanding of problem at the abstract level first. After all, the contemporary learning system purportedly trains new scientists to formal way of reality description, not understanding. This positivist approach my be a consequence of fact, scientists are payed for filling of publications with equations - but not for explanation of subject - so they just adopted to this situation.

From AWT perspective the unparticle concept is still ad hoced, as we can see it in the nested field of nested fluctuations of Boltzmann gas . We can paraphrase here a proverb "The optimist sees the doughnut; the pessimist the hole":

Where physicist sees a particle, mathematican can see a pure geometry only.

But can a "pure geometry" interact with/observe/describe a pure geometry? I really don't think so - or the Universe is one big cheap illussion and we're observing anything. Here's still some fifth element hidden behind particle concept. By my opinion it's a consequence of seemingly trivial fact, we are only part of Universe. Why?

If we could reveal a general explicit rule in sequence of prime numbers or in Fibonnacci spirals inside of growing pile of particles, we could postulate a very general emergence group, which would become nonlocal and very universal by such way. But I don't think, such group exists at all. If we are formed by pure geometry, then we should admit, then the pure geometry can observe/interacts with itself. Such identity would violate Goedel's theorems, Aether concept, virtually everything, what we know about reality so far.

Therefore the question is, why Universe is always larger, then our observable scope? I can feel, the limited speed of information spreading could answer this question, at least partially.

AWT and definition of observable reality

When comparing contemporary physical theories, a natural question can emerge immediately: if AWT is proclamativelly more general, then for example various quantum field or quantum gravity theories, shouldn't it lead to even more solutions, then these theories can supply? And if the vagueness is the main objection against these theories, why we should take care about AWT, after then?

The true is, AWT can lead into virtually infinite number of solutions, because even in quite limited particle system the number of possible states increases by extremely fast way. But AWT introduces a gradient driven reality concept, which is probability driven. Many results of particle-particle collisions aren't simply probable, because they're too rare. Therefore we can see only density gradients inside of dense particles system, not a particles or intermediate states as such. The concept of gradient driven reality is apparently anthropocentric, but it can be derived from AWT concept independently, because only artifacts, which were created by long term evolution of high number of mutations, i.e. by causal time events can interact with reality by gradient driven way.

The probability based approach based on particle statistics brings a rather strict restriction into number of possible solutions of every fuzzy theory. String theorists are aware of this opportunity, so they're trying to apply a statistical approach onto landscape of string theory predictions as well. But because the number of predictions of string theory (~10E+500) roughly corresponds the number of particles states inside of observable portion of Universe, then such approach is phenomenologically identical to AWT, if we simply omit whole intermediate step related to tedious string theory formalism (which is serving like random number generator only) - and if we apply Boltzmann statistics to these states directly.

By such way, the AWT wins over formal theories in simplicity (i.e. by Occam's razor criterion), just because it introduces a gradient driven definition of observable reality into physics, thus reducing the number of possible observable states in it: every object can be observed only and if only it contains some space-time gradient from sufficiently general perspective. For example, the (movement of) density gradients inside of condensing supercritical vapor can be observed, while the molecules (motion) itself not. The single Aether concept i.e. material conditional (antecedent) is sufficient for such decision, if we apply an observability criterion (consequent), thus introducing basic implication vector, which the AWT is based on: if Universe is formed by chaotic/particle environment, then every fluctuation evolved/emerged in it via (number of) causal events would see only the (same number of) causal gradients of it. (... and we can predict an appearance of this observable reality by unique way). By such way, we can always see exactly the part of Universe, which has served for our evolution (space-time emergence) and the observable scope of reality expands gradually. This is the way, how Bohm's implicate/explicate order may be undertood in context of AWT, because implication vector defines a time arrow of causual space-time curvature and subsequent compactification of it here.

The testability of AWT insintric perspective is provided by nonscalar implication vector, which is based on nonsingular (zero or infinite) order of axiomatic tensor.  Outside of this perspective AWT remains tautology inherently, whis is given by fact, no assumption can consider itself, or less generally, that no object of observation can serve both like mean, both like subject of the same observation in the same time and space point. Aether concept itself remains a tautology, as it cannot be proven by observation and causual logic without violation of this logic in less or more distant perspective by the same way, like God concept.

It can be demonstrated easily, many conceptual problems of contemporary science simply follows from the fact, the scientists have no clue, what is observable and what not, because of lack of relevant definition of observable reality. By such way, many possible combinations would simply disappear from testable predictions, if we apply the gradient driven statistics or Lagrange/Hamilton mechanics, which is based on it. In particular, the misinterpretation of results of M-M experiment just follows from the fact, scientists didn't realize, the motion of environment isn't observable by waves of this environment. The refusal of deBroglie /Bohmian mechanics is misunderstanding of the same category: scientists didn't realize, deBroglie wave cannot be observable by light wave (so easily), being a wave of the same environment, so that the lack of experimental evidence of deBroglie wave cannot serve as an evidence against Bohmian mechanics.

AWT, emergence and Hardy's paradox

Recently, the fundamental experimental evidence of Hardy's paradox was given, which basically means, quantum mechanics isn't pure statistics based theory following Bell inequalities anymore. The non-formal understanding of this paradox is easy: if every combination of mutually commutable quantities cannot be measured with certainty, how can we be sure about it? Whether some combination exists, which violates such uncertainty? By such way, uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics violates itself on background, thus enabling so called "weak" measurements.

This was demonstrated recently for the case of entangled photon pairs - it can serve as an evidence, even the photons have a distinct "shape", which is the manifestation of the rest mass of photon. This is because the explicit formulation of quantum mechanics neglects the gravity phenomena and the rest mass concept on background: by Schrödinger equation every particle should dissolve into whole Universe gradually - which violates the everyday observations, indeed. Such behavior is effectively prohibited by acceleration following from omni-directional Universe expansion i.e. the gravity potential, so that every locatable particle has a nonzero surface curvature and its conditionally stable at the human scale. From nested character of Aether fluctuations follows, not only single level of "weak" measurement should be achievable here. After all, the fact we can interact with another people and object without complete entanglement can serve as an evidence, the "weak" observation is very common at the human scale.

By AWT every strictly causual theory violates itself in less or more distant perspective due the emergence phenomena. While the classical formulation of general relativity remains seemingly self-consistent (being strictly based on single causality arrow) - the deeper analysis reveals, derivation of Einstein field equations neglects the stress energy tensor contribution (Yilmaz, Heim, Bekenstein and others), which is the result of mass-energy equivalence. This approach makes relativity implicit and infinitely fractal theory by the same way, like the quantum mechanics (which is AdS/CFT dual theory). For example, gravitational lensing, multiple event horizons of charged black holes and/or dark matter phenomena can serve as an evidence of spontaneous symmetry breaking of time arrows and manifestation of quantum uncertainty and super-symmetry in relativity. This uncertainty leads into landscape of many solutions for every theory quantum field or quantum gravity theory, based on combination of mutually inconsistent (i.e. different) postulates.

Such behavior follows Gödel's incompleteness theorems, by which formal proof of rules valid for sufficiently large natural number sets becomes more difficult, then these rules itself - thus remaining unresolvable by their very nature. This is a consequence of emergence, which introduces a principal dispersion into observation of large causal objects and/or phenomena, which cannot be avoided, or such artifacts wouldn't observable anymore. By such way, every strictly formal (i.e. sequential logic based) proof of natural law becomes violated in less or more distant perspective and it follows "More is Different" theorem. AWT demonstrates, this emergence is followed by causal (i.e. transversal wave based) energy spreading through large system of scale invariant symmetry fluctuations (unparticles), which are behaving like soap foam with respect to light spreading and they enable to observe the universe (and all objects inside it) both from excentric, both from insintric perspective simultaneously. The mutual interference of these two perspectives leads to the quantization of observable reality, which is insintrically chaotic, exsintrically causal by its very nature.

In this connection it's useful (..and sometimes entertaining) to follow deductions of formally thinking theorists, like Lubos Motl, whose strictly formal thinking leads him to the deep contradiction/confrontation with common sense and occasionally the whole rest of world undeniably. It may appear somewhat paradoxical, just fanatic proponent of string theory - which has introduced the duality concept into physics - has so deep problem with dual/plural thinking. This paradox is still logical though, if we realize, how complex the string theory is and how strictly formal thinking it requires for its comprehension.

By such way, "emergence group" of dense Aether theory makes understanding of observable reality quite transparent and easy task at sufficiently general level. It still doesn't mean, here's not still a lotta things to understand at the deeper levels, dedicated to individual formal theories.

Aether and emergence paradigm.

Emergence concept is one of four postmodern paradigms, by which contemporary physics converges to Aether based models of reality. The another ones are unparticle physics of Howard Georgi, Process physics of R.T.Cahill (Wikipedia article deleted by trolls already) and Constructal theory of A. Bejan. Aether concept covers all these particular theories into single one. Until now, emergence concept helped to cover the Aether concept for mainstream physics before publicity. Surprisingly (but quite logically from platonic perspective of mainstream science), while the causal basis of emergence concept is the least understood, it remains accepted in best- if not trendy - by mainstream, as the fast growing number of arXiv HEP articles indicates.

Being quite ancient, emergence concept has no single author, but the most significant proponent of this approach is Standford physicist R. Laughlin, particularly due his personal experience with emergent high pressure phenomena during nuclear research in Livermore. In his popular book "A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down" (2005) he argues for emergence as a replacement for reductionism in accordance to 1972 article by Phil W. Anderson More is different, extended later by preprint of Mile Gu et all More really is different.

Prof. Laughing's stance can be understood by the way, it has no meaning to try to extrapolate the theories too far, until we don't understand their postulates well. It's not a reductionists stance, rather sort of logical optimization of approach. For example, when we start to develop a formal theory from two or more sets of mutually inconsistent postulates, we'll always finish in singular landscape of many possible solutions, because of poorly conditioned condition at the very beginning. Under such circumstances has no meaning to develop some extrapolations based on consecutive logic too deeply - we should rather develop the super-symmetric part of theory, based on parallelized approach, i.e. the intuition.

The conceptual basis of emergence in AWT is trivial and based on the fact, every entity of causal reality (a "particle") should be of positive curvature to remain observable, and the effects of surface curvature are cumulative, so that in every system of high number of such particles the total curvature leads to symmetry breaking and formation of new entities in less or more distant space-time perspective (1, 2). This remains valid for every set of entities of causal reality, based on consecutive logic, i.e. reality driven by single time arrow. From this point of view we can call the Aether model a theory of emergence and vice-versa, albeit I'm in doubt, whether the emergence paradigm can be understood without particle concept at all (and by Ed Witten the same could be said about the rest of string theorists, with honour exception of L. Motl and a few others).

The practical consequence of emergence in physics is every process involving so called spontaneous symmetry breaking (SSB), which is not understood by the same way, like the emergence itself by mainstream physics. As a practical example of SSB can serve every phase transform, the condensation in particular. The nested condensation of supercritical fluid can serve as an iconic example of emergence phenomena, on which whole the AWT is based.

We can met with emergence phenomena in many places in psychology, sociology and biology. A classical example of emergent process is so called imagination - i.e. the creative process of "new" ideas involving phase transforms of waves of electrochemical activity inside of human brain. Because we understand the Universe by mean of ideas, it's nothing strange, we can understood it by mean of emergence as well. The theory of prime number, Fibonacci serii and modular forms are the main areas of emergence theory in math, Penrose tiles in geometry.

In art the manifestation of emergence is manifested by so called serigraphy, i.e. the artistic approach based on repetition of elements based on stencil technique of katazome Japanese art. Albeit the most advantage examples of emergent aspects we can met in quasicrystalline structures used in Islamic art and architecture in particular, which are used in metamaterial and terrahertz technologies. The most famous promoter of serigraphy in modern art is Andy Warhol. The emergence principle is contained in fact, the repetetive application of elements brings new quality into artistic testimonial. In this sense, the violation of symmetry in serigraphy has a particular impact due its apparent evolutionary aspect: people usually prefers the patterns, which are enabling further evolution of ideas and perception, so they can become a part of transformation process.