As we have demonstrated already by model of water surface, the problem of hidden dimensions is tightly connected to violation of Lorentz symmetry up to level, every violation of Lorentz symmetry can be considered as a direct manifestation of hidden dimensions. Because Lorentz symmetry for light spreading in vacuum is violated at presence of every dispersion or refraction phenomena, it would mean, the hidden dimensions are very common in Nature. For example, the hydrogen bonds or repulsive forces between atoms are manifestation of short distance forces operating in very high number of dimensions.
How the heck is all this possible? A quite easily - due the symmetry, in AWT energy spreads through every environment under conservation of integral number of dimensions in two dual ways only: via transversal and longitudinal waves. The forces mediated by these waves follows an inverse power law due the shielding LeSage/Casimir/Feynman mechanism represented by supergravity, where the power is always lower by one from the number of environment dimensions. In this way, for 3D space the only force fulfilling the inverse 2nd power law (ISL) should be a Coulomb force mediated by photons and gravity force mediated by gravitons or gravity waves at infinite scope, i.e. of zero rest mass. Every other force is simply manifestation of interaction in hidden dimensions and Lorentz symmetry violation. Note that Casimir force mechanism mediated by gravity waves corresponds Fatio-LeSage mechanism for gravitons and transaction absorber theory for virtual photons promoted by Feynman and Wheeler for QED in 50's of the last century. Easy and trivial, isn't it?
But mainstream physics still persists a deep inconsistency in thinking. While the world is full of short distance interactions - from weak nuclear force and dual Casimir force spreading if five dimensions, strong nuclear force mediated by gluons and so called gravitomagnetism ("fifth force") mediated by gravitophotons in four dimensions and many refraction and dispersive phenomena inside of atom orbital - mainstream physicists still considers these nonlinear forces as a "special forces", "nonlinearities" and/or "2nd order effects" rather then manifestation of hidden dimensions and ISL violation - despite the fact, under inconsistent thinking they can never get consistent conclusion.
As the result, these scientists are spending a lotta money from our taxes in various less or more sagacious searches of "hidden dimensions". Because they know, violation of Lorentz symmetry would manifest by inverse square law and non zero rest mass of photons, one way of experimental evidence is based on thourough tests of ISL for gravity and Coulomb forces (which are unsuccessful so far, especially because theorists are ignoring Casimir force in this extent). The deep inconsistency in mainstream science thinking manifests by the fact, some of these tests are even interpreted like tests of string theory as well - albeit string theory is based on Lorentz symmetry from its very beginning. Next time we will discuss some techniques, by which we can interpret and/or visualize interactions in hidden dimensions by AWT.
Posts
24 comments:
Hi Zephir,
“As we have demonstrated already by model of water surface, the problem of hidden dimensions is tightly connected to violation of Lorentz symmetry up to level, every violation of Lorentz symmetry can be considered as a direct manifestation of hidden dimensions“
I think Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) also predicts the Lorentz Violation, for example, see this paper, where is said:
“This in turn yields the effective speed of light (97) which involves two types of corrections. One of them is just that of Gambini and Pullin [9] including the helicity of the photon, whereas the other depends on the scale L“
But LQG is a nonperturbative quantization (canonical quantization) of any vaccum, which is a solution of the Einstein Field Equations (EFE). Nevertheless, we can formulate LQG in any number of dimensions (like EFE). The problem is that the Lorentz Violation can be produced in the framework of LQG for any number of dimensions, and this violation is produced in a geometry of 3 + 1 dimensions, as well. Namely, the hidden dimensions are not necessary. So, do you think there is a flaw in LQG?
Zephir,
Don't forget that the ADD model (by Arkany-Hamed and others) has serious flaws, because, this model predicts a neutrino mass too big, and also predicts the lepton number violation for some particles decay process. But the idea of that the gravity force could change at distances that are accessible for the LHC, due to the additional dimensions, is so exciting, that I don't want to rule out this model, yet.
/*..do you think there is a flaw in LQG..*/
LQG is later and conceptually more advanced theory than string theory, as it uses a general relativity in combination of quantum mechanics instead of special relativity. So it should be a slightly more general, then the string theory, too.
Nevertheless, here still persist a conceptual problem, whether supposedly rigorous theory, which is using a relativity can derive the negation of relativity and violation of constant speed of light postulate. By my opinion it's impossible to derive by using "c = const." postulate the "c ≠ const." result in strictly rigorous way. After all, it's known already, quantum gravity leads to the same landscape of fuzzy solutions, like string theory - just in somewhat larger extent. It's an unavoidable
consequence of the above paradox in my opinion.
http://www.physorg.com/news142516533.html
“Nevertheless, here still persist a conceptual problem, whether supposedly rigorous theory, which is using a relativity can derive the negation of relativity and violation of constant speed of light postulate.“
Unfortunately, I am too limited and I can't explain you how this fact is possible. But we must be very careful here, because when you quantized a field then arise amazing properties, quantum mechanics is very different from classical mechanics, namely the quantum fields are very different from the classical fields. For example, when you quantized the electromagnetic field, which is a continuum wave in the Maxwell theory, you obtain the light quanta, namely the photons. These photons are not longer described by a pure wave model (like in the Maxwell theory), but, they present a dual behaviour. For example, when the photons interact with the matter, its behaviour is more close to the particles.
I don't think the Lorentz symmetry violaton is a problem for LQG, because could be a consequence of the canonical quantization of the metric (Ashtekar variables). Just the opposite. I think it's rather a scientific prediction that is not made by many models in String Theory (ST) (ST predicts all and nothing at the same time ;-)). This prediction made by LQG could be tested (or falsified) in a near future (by the Fermy telescope).
The true problem could be that nobody knows how to recover the General Relativity from the low energy regime of LQG. Another related problem is the Barbero-Immirzi parameter. This parameter (real number) must be choose for technical reasons. But the theories that we recovery from the low energy regime could depend of this parameter.
Like you, I prefer LQG instead of ST. ST is not the only game in the city.
/*.. I can't explain you how this fact is possible.. */
It's quite simple, my dear Watson.. LQG theory - like many other formal theories - consist of many postulates: some of them are mutually inconsistent more, some other less. Every formal model is based on certain subset of postulates, as no equation contains them all at the same level. So we can derive equations, which are more relevant with respect to Lorentz symmetry violation, then others - while neglecting the relativity postulates, which are prohibiting Lorentz symmetry violation.
The problem of LQG is simmilar to string theory, as it doesn't use its postulates consistently - and I'm not even sure, whether some finite set of LQG postulates exists. It is problem, because without exact definition of postulate set is impossible to distinguish, which derivation correspond the particular theory and which not. For me this theory is as vague from this perspective, like string theory. Personally I consider these theories dual mutually by their very nature.
/*..Like you, I prefer LQG instead of ST..*/
In brief, string theory is theory of particles, while LQG theory of vaccum, i.e. field theory. AWT is completelly invariant to these theories, as it describes the both by more general mechanism.
So I can see both common, both dual points of all these theories. While LQG theory is using general relativity instead of special relativity, such theory should be more general, then string theory, which is special relativity based - but this is the whole difference.
Each theory brings interesting concepts into physics and it can describe particular situation more effectivelly, then other theories - despite of how general they can be.
Zephir,
I think we can have a theory (a quantum field theory), for which its lagrangian is symmetric with respect to some symmetry group, and a vaccum of this theory could violate this symmetry. And this theory could remain consistent. One thing is the symmetry of the fundamental equations, and other thing is the symmetry of their solutions. Maybe, the Lorentz symmetry is spontaneously broken in LQG. So, LQG could be a consistent theory, although it violated the Lorentz symmetry. Anyway, after to read a little about this question, has been interesting discovering that maybe LQG doesn't violate the Lorentz symmetry after all. Maybe we're talking about something that does not exist yet. For example, someone called Marcus, who seems to know a lot of this matter (much more than me) says:
“As it happens, the main form of LQG that has been researched in the past couple of years is Lorentz invariant.“
You also wrote:
“string theory is theory of particles“
I think string theory is a theory of all things that you want, a theory of particles, a theory of gravity, a theory of dogs and cats, a theory of colours, a theory of strings, a theory of books, a theory of Lubos, a theory of computers, ... in short, a TOE which is useful for nothing. Or maybe I am wrong, string theory could be useful for developing useful tools in math, and thereby, it will be useful to the physics at the future.
HAHA... El Cid = Zeph
Anonymous,
what you are reading is what there is, nothing more ...
HAHA... Anonymous = Robot
/*..I think string theory is a theory of all things that you want..*/ No doubt, string theory is overhyped. For me it's just one of quantum field theories - without Brian Greene nobody of laymans would know about it today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_quantum_field_theories
/* Anonymous = Robot */ a kind of robots, I like...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZXGdg23Qdk
“No doubt, string theory is overhyped“
My view about this issue is that Quantum Gravity is a theory nonrenormalizable because there is a nontrivial UV fixed point. Namely, the divergences arise because we aren't working with the exact theory. We must understand and explore the laws of physics, that are already known, very well before to speculate with strings, branes, additional dimensions, other worlds and similar bullshits ... . I'm afraid that all the string theorists want to be the New Einsteins, my friend ...
What I want to say is that we must study the semiclassical gravity carefully before to make speculative models, whose predictions can not even be measured in the near future. In the Wikikipedia entry it's said:
“The most important applications of semiclassical gravity are to understand the Hawking radiation of black holes and the generation of random gaussian-distributed perturbations in the theory of cosmic inflation, which is thought to occur at the very beginnings of the big bang.“
This issues are much more reasonable than the strings, branes, multiverse, additional dimensions, flux, landscape ...
And we should see the string theorists like the true genius, maybe they think the rest of people are fools, don't they? Not Sir, not, we would have to be making science not science fiction.
Sorry Zephir, but these things upset me.
Don't worry, string theory has its best years gone already.
"String theory is like a 50-year old woman trying to camouflage her flaws by wearing way too much lipstick." Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate
"String theorists .. just celebrated the 20th anniversary of superstring theory. So when one
person spends 20 years, it's a waste, but when thousands waste 20
years in modern day, they celebrate with champagne. I find that curious." Sheldon Glashow, Nobel Laureate
"String theorists don't make predictions, they make excuses." Feynman, Noble Laureate
But not all achievements of string theory should be forgotten from now. If nothing else, flaws of string theory enables us to better understand another more advanced models. We can just try to make this understanding a bit cheaper and less scolastic for future.
Concerning your preferences, I can agree, we should study observable artifacts first - just after then we can speculate about these abstract ones. And we shouldn't judge all string theorists by few (or even single one) asocial freaks, who cannot understand, situation has changed. Currently we have number of alternative models for most of paradigms of string theory.
Thanks,
I didn't know that such prominent physicists were so critic with string theory. I'd like add:
Polchinski (a known string theorist) said:
“I keep hoping that maybe before getting at the underlying equation of string theory we have to solve the problem of high-temperature superconductivity!“
And Philip Anderson of Princeton University, who shared the 1977 Nobel Price for Physics for his work on electronic structure in magnetic and disordered systems, replied to these statements
“The last thing we need is string theorists, Anything out there is hype. Superconductivity is an experimental science, and most string theorists have no idea how to understand an experiment because they have never looked at one!“
It is clear. BTW I'm enjoying a lot reading your blog.
Bollocks! Don`t give me that crap.
Do you believe, Philip Anderson, Bob Laughlin, Sheldon Glashow or Feynman are all just spreading a crap?
People don't realize, just 3D space should be completelly transparent, nonrefracting and empty. At the moment, when we are observing some inhomogeneities or even particles in it such space becomes effectivelly high-dimensional.
This approach can explain controversy of grb090510 photon and to reconcile string theory / LQG theory with Lorentz symmetry violation.
Synopsis: Because 4D space-time is a always flat from 4D perspective and Lorentz symmetry is maintained for it, hidden dimensions manifest as a curvature of flat space-time or density fluctuations of 3D space and Lorentz symmetry is always broken there. Therefore the fact, string theory considers hidden dimensions and extradimensions at the same moment renders it as a inconsistent theory, leading to huge landscape of possible solutions.
The simplest example of extradimensions is the CMB background and/or gravitational lensing, but hidden dimensions are all around us. In AWT we can imagine hidden dimension as a nested density fluctuations. Electron are revolving around atoms independently to the motion of the whole atom - so they're moving in hidden dimensions in the same way, like nucleons inside of atom nuclei. Hidden dimensions manifests by violation of inverse square law, therefore effects like Casimir force or dark matter (Pioneer anomaly) are evidence of hidden dimensions as well. Complex interactions between organisms in life environment and or people inside of human society (the love) are interactions in highly dimensional space-time, when observed from perspective of 4D space-time.
Scientists have found, that electrons confined to the surface of a 3-sphere (ie to the surface of a 4-D ball) behave in a remarkably similar way to electrons confined to real 3D space.
For example, everyone knows, how strangely the massive bodies appear. They're composed of "isolated" particles, which are moving together in collective way. Now, try to imagine, how the projection of hyperdimensional object into 3D space would appear. Try to project the shadow of compact grid to the solid line - the shadow will become composed of 1D "particles", which are moving collectively. The fact, physicists are using a number of mutually inconsistent theories is the consequence of situation, when they're using low-dimensional approach for description of hyperdimensional reality.
If the wave function is real, according to the mathematics, Schrödinger's wave function encodes everything there is to know about a single particle in three dimensions. But things get more complicated very quickly. The wave function for two particles exists in an abstract six-dimensional space and for three particles, it exists in nine dimensions, and so on. (1, 2, 3)
A simple minded question: Do we live in the four-dimensional spacetime?
Post a Comment