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.

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?

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.