Monday, January 26, 2009

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.

No comments: