tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-307081282024-03-13T08:34:10.936-07:00 Aether Wave Theory Blog about most general theory of Universe.Zephirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comBlogger148125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-90881514051543131862011-01-04T20:06:00.000-08:002011-01-04T20:09:24.949-08:00Why Scientific 'Truth' So Often Turns Out Wrong.This post is motivated with John Allen Paulos's article <a class="title loggedin click" href="http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/decline-effect-scientific-truth-turns-wrong/story?id=12510202" target="_blank">The Decline Effect and Why Scientific 'Truth' So Often Turns Out Wrong.</a> <br />
<br />
In AWT this phenomena can be of real emergent nature and it manifests itself with switching of intersubjectively accepted opinion into dual perspective, whenever the density of facts increases up to certain level. It's analogous to dispersive spreading of waves at the water surface, which is switching its character with distance from longitudinal into transverse waves and back into longitudinal waves again. It corresponds the layered fractally nested character of Universe and observable reality.<br />
<br />
For example, from terrestrial perspective the epicycle model of solar system appears relevant. With increasing scope this model has been replaced with heliocentric model but now the evolution of galactic arms can be described with epicycle model again. It's just the number of observable objects, which makes epicycle or heliocentric model more relevant.<br />
<br />
After all, the acceptation/refusal of aether model is of the same emergent evolution. Before some time old Greeks believed in Aether, later (Newton) this concept has been replaced with concept of absolute space. In 19th century the aether based models were quite popular again, but they're were replaced later with relativity model of space-time. Now the aether model is <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2008/11/how-ancient-physics-was-reborn.html">returning into physics again</a> with model of Higgs field, which is responsible for particle mass.<br />
<br />
The emergent character of observable reality can be understood by example of compression of gas, which is changing into fluid or even solid during this. The density fluctuations of newly formed phase are behaving like another generation of gas particles and when the compression continues, they're condensing and changing into nested fluid phase and solid again. The newly formed phase is embedded into previous generation of matter and this process can be repeated many times.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/aether/supercritical2.gif" /></div><br />
I presume, the same evolution occurs during pilling and condensation of facts into theories in hyperdimensional causal space. I Czech we have a proverb: "<i>Stokrát nic umořilo osla</i>" which roughly means "<i>A hundred times nothing killed the donkey</i>". The meaning of this proverb is, even the smallest chores are tiresome (if there is too many).Zephirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.com264tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-677082878292151932010-12-05T11:45:00.000-08:002010-12-05T11:57:46.375-08:00Global warming and galactic superwaves<div class="usertext-body"><div class="md">CfA astronomer Doug Finkbeiner, together with two of his students, Meng Su and Tracy Slatyer, used NASA's Fermi Gamma Ray Telescope to study the diffuse gamma ray emission. They revealed humongous bubbles of high energy emission protruding about 50,000 light-years above and below the galaxy, and centered on its nucleus. Recently, <a href="http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/05/sun-may-soon-plunge-into-hot-clo.html">it was confirmed </a>independently from IBEX observations, the Sun going to enter soon a million-degree galactic cloud of interstellar gas.</div><div class="md"></div><div class="md"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Fermi_bubble_art_labels.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Fermi_bubble_art_labels.jpg" border="0" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/astronomy/galaxy/galaxy_bubbles.gif" /></a></div><br />
At the time of this prediction, astronomers believed that the cores of galaxies, including our own, become active ("explode") about every 10 to 100 million years and stay active for about a million years. Since our own Galactic core presently appears quiescent, they believed it would likely remain inactive for many tens of millions of years. Although in 1977, astronomer Jan Oort cited evidence that our Galactic core has been active within the past 10,000 years. In <a href="http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0503/0503158.pdf" rel="nofollow">Ph.D. dissertation</a>, Paul LaViolette <a href="http://www.etheric.com/GalacticCenter/Galactic.html" rel="nofollow">hypothesized</a> that galactic core explosions recur about every 10,000 years and last for several hundred to a few thousand years. He was the first to suggest such a short recurrence time for galactic core explosions and that our own Galactic core undergoes Seyfert-like explosions with similar frequency. In 1983 Paul LaViolette presented evidence to the scientific community indicating that galactic core explosions actually occur about every 13,000 - 26,000 years for major outbursts and more frequently for lesser events. The emitted cosmic rays escape from the core virtually unimpeded. As they travel radially outward through the Galaxy, they form a spherical shell that advances at a velocity approaching the speed of light.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2010/11/10/0001248067/bubble_fermi.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="242" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/astronomy/galaxy/galaxy_bubbles1.gif" width="400" /></a></div><br />
<br />
LaViolette's research suggests that the Sun also became highly active as dust and gas falling onto its surface induced extreme flaring activity. Together with the radiation influx from the Sun's dust cocoon, this caused the Sun's corona and photosphere to inflate, much as is observed today in dust-choked stars called "T Tauri stars." These various solar effects caused atmospheric warming and inversion conditions that facilitated glacial growth which brought on ice age conditions. On occasions when the solar radiation influx to the Earth became particularly high, the ice age climate warmed, initiating episodes of rapid glacial melting and continental flooding. There is evidence that one particularly tragic solar flare event occurred around 12,900 years ago during a period when the Sun was particularly active. This involved the release of an immense coronal mass ejection which engulfed the Earth and induced a mass animal extinction. Details of this scenario are described in Paul LaViolette's book <a href="http://www.etheric.com/LaVioletteBooks/Book-EUF.html" rel="nofollow">Earth Under Fire</a> as well as in a series of journal articles he has published. Astronomical observations show the last major Galactic core explosion occurred as recently as 10,000 to 15,000 years ago.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.etheric.com/GalacticCenter/Fig2.gif" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img align="top" border="0" height="400" naturalsizeflag="0" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/astronomy/galaxy/galactic_explosion.gif" width="346" /></a></div>LaViolette has an analysis of this evidence of a superwave event on his blog (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wIMYlKzYTig#t=7s">YT video</a>). The geometry of the bubbles coincide with a superwave event occuring approximately 26000 years ago, which is supported by evidence in the ice core record. Data obtained from polar ice core samples show evidence of this cosmic ray event as well as other cosmic ray intensity peaks from earlier times.</div></div>Zephirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.com48tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-29879662967070224582010-11-28T04:25:00.000-08:002010-11-30T15:03:44.793-08:00Do galaxies shrink with time?Albeit Universe is expanding seemingly (Hubble 1929), the astronomers <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.4956">have found recently</a>, the galaxies are actually shrinking with time. Because a true galaxy-size increase would be incompatible with standard cosmology, if not with the laws of gravity, authors indicate the presence of systematical errors in Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Albeit I do believe, this finding is actually consistent with particle dispersion model of Universe expansion, in which objects smaller then the wavelength of CMBR are expanding with time, but the objects larger then the CMBR wavelength are collapsing instead in analogy with capillary wave dispersion at the water surface.<br />
<br />
In accordance with this model many phenomena related to red shift <a href="http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/50199-dark-matter-and-dark-energy-may-not-exist-at-all">actually disappaer</a> for CMBR wavelengths (CMBR photons cannot disperse with itself). Shrinking of galaxies is therefore consistent with AWT model of surface ripples dispersion at the water surface and with time symmetry of omnidirectional Universe expansion, predicted with AWT. The Universe should expand seemingly in light shorter then the wavelength of CMBR, which is known as a red shift (Hubble 1929).<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=30708128&postID=2987966296707022458"><img height="92" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/aether/water_ripples.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
In light of wavelengths larger then CMB wavelength a blue shift and attenuation of light with distance should be actually observed. The attenuation of distant radio source with distance has been already observed, too. Last July, US astronomers <a href="http://arcade.gsfc.nasa.gov/results_2006.html">announced surprising results</a> from a high-altitude balloon experiment called ARCADE-2, which had made careful measurements of the sky at radio wavelengths. The background radio emission, which is the component smoothly distributed across the whole sky, was several times brighter than anyone was expecting.<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
<a href="http://arcade.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/arc2_show_sky_temp_3.gif" title="Cosmic Radio Noise Booms Six Times Louder Than Expected"><img border="0" height="257" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/astronomy/cmb/radio_gain.gif" width="400" /></a></div>Aether Wave Theory cannot predict the absolute value of the gain observed in this moment - but it predicts, at the wavelength of CMBR this gain should be zero, which is what has been actually observed. Actually it's just a consequence of fact, for structures larger then the wavelenght of CMBR the gravity dominates over quantum effects (pressure of CMBR), so that such objects are collapsing. Because these objects are observable only with light of comparable wavelength, the Universe should appear collapsing, when being observed in radiowaves.<br />
<br />
Regarding blue shift of radiowave source, it has been observed possibly, too as a <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0603191">Pioneer maser anomaly</a> (compare the <a href="http://blog.hasslberger.com/docs/PioneerEffect.pdf">LaViolette's blueshifting prediction</a>). Blue shift is notoriously difficult to observe, because of lack or reliable reference sources of known frequency (hydrogen vibration spectra of remote sources are absorbed heavily with interstellar gas). But some man-made objects are already remote enough to observe blueshift with artificial sources of radiowaves. <br />
<br />
It means, the time arrow is actually violated, our Universe doesn't travel <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/08/awt-and-cosmological-time-arrow.html">through time in one direction</a>. One half of Universe expands due the pressure of radiation and its entropy increases. The second part (this one larger then ~2 mm) collapses with its gravity instead and its entropy goes down.Zephirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-77696389776313072792010-10-03T07:10:00.000-07:002010-10-03T07:41:06.084-07:00Clever individuals do not make the group smarterThis post is a reaction to the <a href="http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-10/01/intelligent-individuals-group-smart">recent article</a> (<a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130247631">more details</a>) in which <a href="http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2009-04/21/wired-infiltrates-the-intelligent-people-social-network">individual brainpower</a> contributes little to collective smarts. Instead, it’s social awareness -- the ability to pick up on emotional cues in others -- that seems to determine how smart a group can be.<br />
<br />
When we write something new in internet discussion, we just get negative voting usually, because people aren't prepared to get new generally valid information from individuals at all. Instead of this, the more irrelevant and widespread is the internet meme in your answers, the higher score you get - because it's considered "witty". Actually you're just repeating things, which most of people are already expecting to listen unconsciously. Most of people don't expect to hear some revolutionary ideas at all - instead of this, they're feeling confounded, if not confused when being confronted with them. It should be pointed out, the poor language skills are making the sharing of emotions <a href="http://www.physorg.com/news198776761.html" rel="nofollow">much more difficult</a>, then the sharing of logical information. In addition, socially successful people <a href="http://www.physorg.com/news122212997.html" rel="nofollow">tend to ignore</a> logical arguments. <br />
<br />
In another words, if you want to convince people for something clever or good, you have to manipulate them for it emotionally... Emotions, emotions, emotions...<br />
<br />
Unfortunately it works in both directions, as Joseph Goebels knew already.<br />
<br />
Actually, in dense aether theory a rather simple wave spreading model <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/01/awt-and-definition-of-intelligence.html" rel="nofollow">can be applied </a> to this situation. This model renders human society like particle system, where every particle exhibits it's own surface gradient of information density, i.e. the intelligence. Theories, i.e. well accepted paradigms of human thinking correspond the density gradients at the water surface and the intelligent ideas are corresponding causual, i.e. tranverse waves in causual space, similar to ripples at the water surface. The emotional feelings correspond the longitudinal waves instead, similar to underwater sound waves.<br />
<br />
The underwater waves are weaker but they're spreading in much faster way - whereas surface waves tend to bounce from every gradient of information density (i.e. intelligence). Very bright people are behaving like black holes in this model - they're collecting all informations freely, but their experience cannot be shared easily, because of total reflection mechanism at their surface gradient of intelligence density. With compare to it, very dumb people are behaving like mirror-like bubbles with respect to transverse waves instead: they're empty and they're even reflecting all causal information coming from outside.<br />
<br />
A well known <a href="http://www.earthlingcommunication.com/blog/why-smart-people-have-poor-communication-skills-and-what-to-do-about-it.php" rel="nofollow">kind of symmetry</a> between formal (IQ) and nonformal intelligence (EQ) exists here, though: dumb people are often quite sensitive emotionally and they can be manipulated easily in this way, whereas logical argument doesn't count very much for them. Instead of it, formally bright people are rather emotional nuts and they lack EQ and social skills often - compare the Sheldon Cooper character from The Big Bang Theory sitcom.<br />
<br />
The only way, in which black hole can radiate it's information to outside is the gravitational waves, which appear like Howking radiation. This mechanism is relatively subtle though, which explains, why really intelligent ideas are propagating slowly to the rest of society. Nevertheless, they can be supported with sufficiently emotional propaganda. For example, string theory (which is actually quite incomprehensible for laymans) is promoted with shots of beauty violinists in play at <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/" rel="nofollow">Nova TV show</a>.Zephirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-14224791143665254072010-09-27T04:58:00.000-07:002010-09-27T05:11:15.602-07:00Should journalists second guess the scientific truth?This post is a reaction to <a href="http://tinyurl.cz/01jy">recent article</a> of Lubos Motl of the same name. It's not surprising, Motl supports his restrictive stance, regarding the rights to expression of private opinion from the side of journalists. But we shouldn't neglect the fact, with respect to climatic science Lubos is just an educated journalist like everyone else and he violates his own rules flagrantly, because he is trying to influent public meaning massively all the time. He is just trying to dispute rights of journalists to the same activity, which he dedicated most of his time - and because he uses Google Adsense on his blog, he's even earning some money for it like professional journalists.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/07/31/religion_science/story.jpg"><img border="0" height="239" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/society/science_religion.gif" width="300" /></a> </div><br />
In general, opinion of experts matters from intrinsic perspective only. But just because experts are specialized to narrow area of their private interest, they're not overmuch qualified in judging of their opinions in wider context - on the contrary, they tend to occupy their stances rather blindly - the more, the more they feel being an experts in given area. In this context the reading of articles <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/09/15/the_era_of_expert_failure_107170.html">The era of expert failure</a> by Arnold Kling, <a href="http://www.nypost.com/f/print/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/why_experts_are_usually_wrong_LsjnnoKdgoOoH5QJHmT5QO">Why experts are usually wrong</a> by David H. Freeman and <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/17/pf/experts_Tetlock.moneymag/index.htm">Why the experts missed the crash</a> by Phill Tetlock (<a href="http://zpravy.idnes.cz/pozor-na-predpovedi-expertu-temer-jiste-se-myli-ftq-/kavarna.asp?c=A090109_151136_kavarna_bos">in Czech</a>) may be useful not only for Lubos Motl.<br />
<br />
Niels Bohr: "<i>An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field</i>".Zephirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.com178tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-10911332802237642262010-07-17T05:43:00.000-07:002011-01-05T10:39:32.079-08:00Higgs boson and fourth generation of quarks<div style="text-align: left;">This post is inspired by recent <a href="http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/rumors_about_light_higgs">blog post</a> of Tomaso Dorigo, who announced finding of Higgs boson with mass of about 150 GeV. By official media coverage it's just a rumour, that's got out of hand, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/large-hadron-collider/7888012/Higgs-boson-discovery-rumours-false-say-Tevatron-scientists.html">as expressed</a> by Fermilab's spokes'girl. More interestingly is, what's behind this rumour - and I don't mean over imagination or exploding ego of Mr. Dorigo, as <a href="http://twitter.com/FermilabToday/status/18396561721">Fermilab's Twitter post</a> implies spitefully. Or do you really believe, Fermilab would give its official stance through Twitter? Such anonymous message is even much less reliable, then the original blogpost of Mr. Dorigo. But such way of prematurely presentation of results and their vetoing indicates, how mainstream physics maneuvers between less or more opened tendency to announce findings as soon as possible for the sake of publicity and/or grant support ex una parte - and the demonstrative expression of conservative skepticism on the other hand.</div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.pd.infn.it/%7Edorigo/mssm_hbb_bgs.jpg"><img border="0" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/nuclear/higgs/higgs_boson.gif" /></a></div><br />
<br />
IMO Higgs boson is the same <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2010/02/higgs-boson-as-unparticle.html">fuzzy unparticle stuff</a>, like the virtual bosons responsible for Casimir force - their effective mass depends on surface geometry. Just at the case of Higgs boson the upper bound is limited by mass of top quark, so it can form a fuzzy signal, corresponding the dilepton channel of top quark decay, which was observed already. If even more massive quark exists, then its corresponding Higgs should indeed exist too and the whole concept of unique "God's particle" becomes fringe.<br />
<br />
Mr. Dorigo himself putted the nail into coffin of Higgs boson by his <a href="http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/four_things_about_four_generations">previous announcement</a> of fourth generation of quarks in 450 GeV range. Before finding of neutrino oscillation, the Standard Model contained 19 arbitrary dimensionless constants describing the masses of the particles and the strengths of the electroweak and strong forces. After the discovery of neutrino mass the new Standard Model requires 26 fundamental dimensionless constants, whose numerical values are, to the best of present understanding, arbitrary. Currently Standard Model is indeed incompatible with fourth generation of quarks or neutrinos, but thanks so high number of constants flexible enough to implement even higher particle generations. It's sort of regressive epicycle model keeping the Ptolemaic physics of modern era alive.<br />
<br />
We can say, this finding is of approximatelly the same relevance like the previous finding of Higgs boson anounced (about three sigma in error level). And quess what? In this time the blog article <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627622.700-matter-the-next-generation.html">was handled</a> by NewScientist quite seriously and it got full coverage in media. The whole trick here is, most of physicists actually <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/jun/05/cern-lhc-god-particle-higgs-boson">do not believe</a> in concept of Higgs boson on background - despite the massive propaganda in CERN related media, the main purpose is to justify expensive experiments at LHC. <br />
<br />
The title of recent another <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427341.200-in-susy-we-trust-what-the-lhc-is-really-looking-for.html">NewScientist article</a> "<i>In SUSY we trust: What the LHC is really looking for</i>" (<a href="http://serpentexit.blogspot.com/2009/12/in-susy-we-trust-what-large-hadron.html">full version</a>) illustrates clearly, physicists are aware of the conceptual problems of Higgs field concept. The article should be interpreted like: "<i>Uhm, well, ... we actually don't believe, Higgs boson will be ever found at LHC - so we should concentrate to supersymmetry instead</i>. ."<br />
<br />
With respect to AdS/CFT duality the success or problems with particle search at Planck scale will be replicated/mirrored at cosmological scales (WIMPs detection) and vice-versa. Therefore it's not so strange, when dual situation recently <a href="http://tinyurl.com/ya3q2hm">appeared in media</a>, when scientists started to speculate, (primordial) gravitational waves cannot be found at all due the "<a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527453.700-quantum-spread-threat-to-hawkings-bet.html">quantum-spread</a>", which would render detectors of gravitational waves useless in the same way, like the LHC at quantum scale. <br />
<br />
This is an example, how seemingly spontaneous scientific PR is basically working - layman public should trace subliminal messages of it for to get the realistic picture about opinion of this close sectarian community in the noise of PR journalism and propaganda.Zephirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.com42tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-20417300301869834132010-06-20T00:36:00.000-07:002010-06-20T01:35:11.185-07:00Is the Universe Leaking Energy?This post is an reaction to recent <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/">ScientificAmerican</a> <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-the-universe-leaking-energy">article</a>, in which the idea of mass/energy conservation law for Universe at large scales is impeached. <br />
<br />
<div class="usertext-body"><div class="md">In <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">Aether Wave Theory</a> (<a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">AWT</a>, dense aether theory) Universe is completelly random stuff, similar to nested dense fluctuations of hypothetical dense gas (aether) and its energy content is basically stable at large scales. The red shift in visible light should be compensated with blue shift for radio waves in analogy to dispersion of light at the water surface, i.e. nothing really expands, neither is losing its energy in fact. This doesn't mean, laws of Universe are 100% valid - the Universe just appears like random noise at both quantum, both cosmological scales - so we cannot observe any trend in it at sufficiently global scale.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/aether/water_ripples.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/aether/water_ripples_vert.jpg" /></a></div><a href="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/aether/water_ripples.jpg" rel="nofollow"> </a><br />
Because the effect of Universe expansion compensates with contraction just at the wavelength about 2 cm (<a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/01/awt-and-human-scale.html">human observer scale</a>), we're observing <a href="http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/50199-dark-matter-and-dark-energy-may-not-exist-at-all">the lack of dark energy and dark matter phenomena</a> just during observation of Universe in microwaves (compare the post about <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/08/awt-and-cosmological-time-arrow.html">cosmological time arrow</a> and <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/ceweg/dark_matter_and_dark_energy_may_not_exist_at_all/">reddit comment</a>).</div></div>Zephirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-6573460516147900112010-06-19T02:28:00.000-07:002010-06-19T02:32:43.634-07:00Quantum theorist explaining gravity is an ox(y)moronThis post is an reaction to ArXiv blog article <a class="title loggedin " href="http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25331/?nlid=3141">New Quantum Theory Separates Gravitational and Inertial Mass.</a> A typical problem with theoretical physicists is that they think that by presenting an alternative interpretation of a contradiction one can remove the contradiction. <br />
<br />
Equations of quantum theory cannot describe gravity at all - on the contrary. By Schrödinger equation all wave packets of free particles should expand into infinity, not to collapse by gravity. We cannot switch 1 = 1 to 1 = -1 by any causal math because quantum theory reverses time arrow of general relativity.<br />
<br />
<div class="usertext-body"><div class="md"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/gravity/gravity_lensing2.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Observers inside and outside of gravitational field of massive bodies would perceive the same situation from perspective of general relativity and quantum mechanics" border="0" height="217" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/gravity/gravity_lensing2.gif" title="Observers inside and outside of gravitational field of massive bodies would perceive the same situation from perspective of general relativity and quantum mechanics" width="331" /></a></div>In AWT we can reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics in two main ways:<br />
<ol><li>By using of particle simulation of nested density fluctuations inside of very dense gas. At the certain level of condensation the resulting solution inside of dense particle clusters would become close to general relativity, while the solution of outside them would become close to general relativity.</li>
<li>We can solve wave equation in very high number of dimensions. After the solution in inner 3D slice of solution can be compared with quantum mechanics, in outer 3D slice it can be compared with general relativity.</li>
</ol>Actually, in <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">AWT</a> the equivalence principle is violated by electrostatic or dipole forces, Casimir force etc. which are acting in <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/04/quest-for-hidden-dimensions.html">extra-dimensions</a> and nothing strange is about it. All these forces depend on different quantities, then just mass. <br />
<ol></ol></div></div>Zephirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-69389650019235751022010-02-04T16:52:00.000-08:002010-02-05T11:30:52.426-08:00Higgs boson as an unparticleThe unparticle concept <a href="http://www.physorg.com/news100753984.html">was proposed</a> by Harward professor Howard Gorgi before few years. AWT introduces unparticles by concept of fractally nested density fluctuations inside of dense gas. For example clouds are scale invariant unparticle stuff, similar to Perlin noise. Recently D. Stancato & J. Terning <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.3961">have proposed</a> unparticle character of Higgs bosone. Prof. <a href="http://tinyurl.com/4qrkvd">Hawking reckons</a>, that a number of "partner" particles will emerge, instead, thus making prof. Higgs upset by his stance.<br />
<br />
This is not so difficult to understand, because from common perspective the unparticle hypothesis would effectively mean, no distinct Higgs particle signal will be ever found, until we achieve collider jets, composed of unique particles to demonstrate it - because Higgs field interaction would have a character of kink widespread over ultraviolet part of mass-energy spectrum. Could prof. Higgs deserve Nobel price, if it turns out Higgs boson is just some Unhiggs?<br />
<br />
In more illustrative way, Unhiggs field is analogous to coat of virtual quarks, in which all elementary particles are surrounded at small distances. This coat glues particles together at smallest distances. Such unstable particles can still be observed by their collective effects, for example by jet suppression during particle collisions. Just because it's difficult to call them particles they're called an unparticles. It's responsible for so called Yukawa coupling, responsible for pairing and gluing of nucleons and quarks inside of atom nuclei, for formation of top-quark pairs, glueballs, pentaquark and another artifacts, which were observed recently at Tevatron.<br />
<br />
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). It means, Higgs boson <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/10/can-time-travelling-higgs-sabotage-lhc.html">was observed already</a> at Tevatron as a product of top-quark coupling and identified by dilepton channel of top-quark decay.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/nuclear/higgs/Higgs_bosone.gif" /> </div><br />
In AWT such field exists at all scales and it manifests by Casimir force mediated by virtual photons at micrometer scale, or dark matter at megaparsec scale, for example. It means, Higgs field has a scale invariant character of fuzzy unparticles, which are changing their size accordingly to carrier particles. The combination of trivial and topological band insulators within topological insulators and superconductors is bringing <a href="http://pitp.physics.ubc.ca/confs/7pines2009/readings/arovas_Stern_2007.pdf">anyons and plektons</a> - unparticles that behave neither according to purely Bose nor Fermi statistics.<br />
<br />
The title of recent <a href="http://tinyurl.com/yhfvwkx">NewScientist article</a> "<i>In SUSY we trust: What the LHC is really looking for</i>" illustrates clearly, physicists are aware of the conceptual problems of Higgs field concept. The article should be interpreted like: "<i>Uhm, well, ... we really don't believe, Higgs boson will be ever found at LHC - so we should concentrate to supersymmetry, for not being blamed completely before publicity</i>". The question is, whether physicists could admit openly before publicity, LHC is useless with respect to search of Higgs boson even by their own theories, if they wasted so much money in it.<br />
<br />
This is a demo, how seemingly spontaneous scientific PR is basically working. Dual situation <a href="http://tinyurl.com/ya3q2hm">appeared recently</a> in media, when scientists started to speculate, (primordial) gravitational waves cannot be found at all due the "quantum-spread", which renders detectors of gravitational waves useless. With respect to AdS/CFT duality the success or problems with particle search at Planck scale will be replicated/mirrored at cosmological scales (WIMPs detection) and vice-versa. <br />
<br />
The similar U-turn we could expect later regarding estimations of <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/01/awt-and-lhc-risk.html">LHC collider safety</a>. The most problematic part of Unhiggs detection at LHC is the strangelet controversy: in contact with terresterial matter it could enable avalanche chain formation of clusters of particles, analogous to stable <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blackhole/tiny.html">microscopic black holes</a> predicted by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole">Randall-Sundrum model</a>. Recently <a href="http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2010/122/1">A. Choptuik demonstrated</a>, when extra-dimensions are involved, black hole could be formed with compare to existing CERN safety analysis, considering Hawking radiation as the only mechanism of black hole evaporation (<a href="http://doc.cern.ch/yellowrep/2003/2003-001/p1.pdf">1</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3414">2</a>,<a href="http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/Safety-en.html"> 3</a>). In addittion, CERN considers, black hole could interact with its neighborhood via gravitational interaction only, thus <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/06/020604073033.htm">purportedly neglecting</a> their electromagnetic interaction, which is 10e+41 x stronger.<br />
<br />
"<i>Does that mean the LHC will make black holes? Not necessarily</i>", Choptuik says. "<i>The Planck energy is a quintillion times higher than the LHC's maximum. So the only way the LHC might make black holes is if, instead of being three dimensional, space actually has more dimensions that are curled into little loops too small to be detected except in a high-energy particle collision. Predicted by certain theories, those extra dimensions might effectively lower the Planck energy by a huge factor</i>." <br />
<br />
Well, if some extra-dimensions could wipe-out one quintillion factor (?!?) of LHC safety expected, can scientists admit, <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0605062">they're openly planning</a> to verify theory, which predicts formation of stable black holes just by <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0112186">formation of black holes</a> at LHC? Could CERN physicists ever admit, it <a href="http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.5480.pdf">could be qualified</a> as an criminal act by the rest of society?<br />
<br />
We should realize, CERN physicists <i>just want</i> to build and operate LHC collider despite of any risk, because it provides them safe and stable jobs and environment for scientific carrier. They're supported in their activities by lobby of private companies involved in technical support of LHC. We could say, high concentration of money in civilization leads to spontaneous formation of dense states of matter in simmilar way, like dense concentration of energy in universe. The desinformed rest of society underestimated these emergent relationships, which resulted into establishing of large groups of people, who are openly ignorant - if not even hostile - to further destiny of civilization.Zephirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-67860810902268385852010-01-15T15:41:00.000-08:002010-01-19T21:23:27.991-08:00AWT and CP symmetry violationIn AWT CP symmetry violation is a consequence of dispersion of energy through Aether foam with increasing number of dimensions. While the energy spread along space-time brane in symmetric way, with increasing mass/energy density the fragmentation of time dimensions occurs. Quantum foam gets more dense with increasing energy density in similar way like soap foam under shaking and it changes itself into foam with small spherical bubbles similar to fluid, which results into collective motion of particles involved. The constituents of quark-gluon plasma are strongly coupled, causing their collective flow. This coupling is basically well known Yukawa coupling, which can be explained by presence of Higgs field. As I explained <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/10/can-time-travelling-higgs-sabotage-lhc.html">already here</a>, formation of top-quark pairs can be interpreted like formation of Higgs bosons, which are of the same rest mass and mechanism of dilepton decay channel. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/aether/foamgradient2.jpg" imageanchor="1"> <img border="0" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/aether/foamgradient2.jpg" /></a><a href="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/aether/bosone.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/aether/bosone.gif" /></a><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div>The fragmentation of quantum foam into smaller bubbles leads to fragmentation of time arrows and violation of jet symmetry during RHIC/LHC collisions of heavy atom nuclei. The same fragmentation can be observed near rotating black holes (Kerr solution leads to multiple event horiozons) and polarization of CMB at 40 MPc+ scale. The symmetry violation during jet formation could be explained by omnidirectional space-time expansion during torus spinning - the inner part of ring always rotates faster, so it's dragged into axis direction. <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/nuclear/parity/cobalt_parity1.gif" imageanchor="1"> <img border="0" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/nuclear/parity/cobalt_parity1.gif" /></a><br />
</div>The violation of jet symmetry can be understood as an example of CP symmetry violation, which was observed first at the case of spin polarized and cooled cobalt-60 nuclei (1956), which are emanating electrons in asymmetric way. The same stuff we can observed at the case of jets of black holes (like the famous M87 and <a href="http://hea-www.harvard.edu/%7Edevans/pressreleases.html">Centaurus A</a>, which are asymmetric in similar way, like jets emanated by quark-gluon plasma during collider experiments. The second jet should be formed by jet of supersymetric particles, fotinos in particular. The absorption of jet demonstrates, how easily the QG plasma can be feeded by matter under formation of strangelets or <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0112186">even black holes</a>. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://jhguth1942.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/m87_jet_from_2_gigasolar_mass_black_hole.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/astronomy/blackhole/black_hole_jet1.jpg" /></a> <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/images/080110-blackhole-picture.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/astronomy/blackhole/black_hole_jet2.jpg" /></a><br />
</div><a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0112186"></a><br />
<br />
In this connection it may be significant, <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2008/11/awt-and-vorm-holes.html">CMB cold spot</a> is unpaired too (if the observable Universe is formed by black hole, we could see through polar jet into hyper-universe). The observed <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.2529">parity violation of galaxies</a> and <a href="http://www.astro.ucla.edu/%7Ewright/CMB-DT.html">CMB Doppler anisotropy</a> should be correlated to <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2008/11/awt-and-vorm-holes.html">CMB cold spot</a> direction, too. Because jets of black holes are exaggerated example of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_darkening">gravity brightening</a>, we could observe CP symmetry violation by difference of polar temperatures and curvatures at the case of giant rotating stars, too. In this connection it's interesting too, even Earth globe has a pear shape, which deforms <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_ellipsoid">Earth ellipsoid</a> by elevation of about two hundred meters at north pole. It's interesting, Christopher Columbus considered it in 17th century already, while promoting westward voyage to Cathay (<i>China</i>) or Zipangu (Japan).<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/astronomy/cmb/wmap5.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="164" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/astronomy/cmb/wmap5.gif" width="320" /></a><br />
</div>Zephirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-5664287709293998132010-01-15T12:58:00.000-08:002010-01-18T16:14:51.056-08:00Is light of pulsar spreading in superluminal speed?This post is a reaction to recent PW article <a href="http://www.blogger.com/cws/article/news/41378">Pulsar bursts move 'faster than light'</a>. It's not true, this phenomenon was described in an astronomical object first - the same effect was disputed before years for motion of bright areas in <a href="http://www.stsci.edu/ftp/science/m87/m87.html">jet of M87 galaxy</a>, where it has supposedly the same explanation. As a dense aether proponent I appreciate readers, who are trying to think "out of box" - but in this case, this particular observation has really nothing to do with Aether and "violation of Lorentz symmetry" - but with peculiar way, in which light of pulsars propagates through environment filled by particles of interstellar gas. The animation bellow illustrates it by <a href="http://tinyurl.com/y9kgacz">computer simulation</a>:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.stsci.edu/ftp/science/m87/m87.mpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/astronomy/m87_jet.gif" width="102" /></a><a href="http://140.115.40.128/research/slab-points.gif" rel="nofollow" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank" title="http://tinyurl.com/y9kgacz"><img height="221" src="http://tinyurl.com/y9kgacz" width="196" /></a><br />
</div><br />
</div><br />
This phenomena is related to way, in which light is propagating through so-called metamaterials. The uncertainty about exact source position is the reason, why we cannot talk about information exchange between observer and object, because the amplitude of light travels through interstellar gas in noncausual way. After all, it's not wave itself (group velocity), but an amplitude of light (phase velocity), which is traveling here by superluminal speed in analogy to motion of laser spot along surface of moon. The supersonic sound wave "spreading" was observed during spreading of ultrasound pulses through dense polystyrene dispersions in water, too.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/gravity/gravitons.gif" style="height: 134px; width: 278px;" /> <br />
</div><br />
A more intriguing question could be, whether longitudinal component of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation">CMB noise</a> - i.e. superluminal <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/09/awt-and-gravitational-waves.html">gravitational waves</a> could be interpreted by analogous dispersion of light waves on Higgs field forming vacuum. In this moment I'm unable to decide, whether such perspective is relevant to reality and if it could lead to some new testable predictions. It could be somehow related to so called <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.0808">block-universe concept</a>, by which reality in motion occurs by inhomogeneous spreading of information through Aether lattice at rest - which I personally consider biased toward atemporal perspective of Universe.Zephirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-10350668911488728762010-01-12T11:14:00.000-08:002011-01-05T19:07:07.873-08:00Lie E8 group and quantum criticalityExceptional Lie E8 group shot to fame in 2007, when the US freelance physicist Garrett Lisi posted a paper on the <cite>arXiv</cite> preprint server suggesting that E8 could map out all known particles and their mutual interactions. However a well before in 1988 the Russian physicist <a href="http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/people/pips/ZamolodchikovAlexander.html">Alexander Zamolodchikov</a> showed that E8 symmetry could also describe the spectrum of spin excitations that occur in 1D Ising ferromagnets. <a href="http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/quantum-magnetism">Radu Coldea</a> of Oxford University and colleagues at the Helmholtz Zentrum Berlin (HZB) have measured the energies of several of these quasiparticles by cooling the cobalt niobate to 40 mK and firing neutrons at it. When the experiment was done at zero magnetic field, five quasiparticles were spotted. Their energies are described by a mathematical formula derived three decades ago by <a href="http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/physics/forms/profilesearch.cgi?lastname=mccoy">Barry McCoy</a> and Tai Tsun Wu.<br />
<br />
Density of magnetic domains increases with increasing magnetic field in simmilar way, like density of gas fluctuations under pressure. At certain moment, the nested density fluctuations are formed in similar way, which we can observe during condensation of supercritical vapor. As the strength of the field was increased to the quantum critical value of 5.5 T, the ratio of energies of the first two quasiparticles approached 1.618. This number is the "golden ratio" and is precisely what should be measured if the quasiparticles are described by E8 – a prediction that was made more than 20 years ago by prof. Zamolodchikov. <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/aether/supercritical2.gif"><img height="182" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/aether/supercritical2.gif" width="182" /></a></div><br />
As <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2008/09/e8-lie-group-and-aether-theory.html">explained previously</a> by concept of quantum foam, root system of E8 Lie group solves trivial question: "<i>Which structure should have the tightest lattice of particles, formed by energy exchange of another particles?</i>". And such question has perfect meaning even from classical physics point of view! Such question has a perfect meaning in theory, describing the most dense structure of inertial particles formed by energy exchange between another particles, which we can ever imagine, i.e. the interior of black hole, which is forming the vacuum. Therefore it's not so strange, both one of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterotic_string">heterotic string theories</a>, both <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencetopics/largehadroncollider/3314456/Surfer-dude-stuns-physicists-with-theory-of-everything.html">Garretts E8 theory</a> is dealing with E8 group and <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.3775">Horava's theory</a> deals with quantum critical point. The animations bellow are illustrating, how most compact particle packing is related to golden mean ratio observed in critical point. By AWT the E8 is based on the geometry of most compact packing geometry possible and most dense particle packing happens when packing density along surface and volume becomes exactly balanced.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><img alt="E8 is based on the geometry of most compact packing geometry possible" border="0" height="150" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/aether/fibonacci/fibbonaci.gif" title="E8 is based on the geometry of most compact packing geometry possible" width="150" /><img alt="Most dense particle packing happens when packing density along surface and volume is exactly balanced" border="0" height="153" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/aether/fibonacci/nearPhiSpirals.gif" title="Most dense particle packing happens when packing density along surface and volume is exactly balanced" width="189" /> </div><br />
Golden mean ratio is closely related to densest particle packing in similar way, like the E8 group geometry. We can expect, certain random arrangement of particles is more compact, then another ones, so energy spreads in slowest way and the cosmic space appears largest in it. In natural systems golden mean minimizes the surface/volume ratio, i.e. it defines most effective object packing in situations, where many particles are involved. In such objects energy spreads in slowest possible way (because they're so compact), which means, these objects are most stable and atemporal, i.e. they're of highest fitness and they can survive easier. Human brain is just an engine for particularly slow but atemporal energy spreading (i.e. without dispersion). Solitons (not just those in human brain) consist of waves, where frequency and energy of components follows golden mean ratio, too. Evolution is analogous to travel in dispersive environment, so we can imagine particles and planets as a most compact solitons, which survived the travel through CMB noise in most successful way.<br />
<br />
The most compact arrangement or repulsing particle corresponds so called Wigner phase inside of cold plasma crystals. Another system, which could exhibit E8 symmetry are nested density fluctuations, which occurs inside of condensing supercritical vapor temporarily. During this the nested density fluctuations of mutually repulsing particles should be formed, which leads into compact structure of kissing hyperspheres, described just by root vector system of Lie's E8 group.<br />
<br />
We can apply the above principles to area of scientific research too. Research follows both information spreading along well defined gradients/surfaces of knowledge, i.e. formal theories, both intuitive holistic thinking through bulk of knowledge independently to existing theories (so called "crackpottery", but I rather call it a "mutations" in evolution of knowledge). After then the most effective strategy is just the approach, where the formal and intuitive approaches are balanced in golden mean ratio. So we shouldn't expect, only blind combinations of equations will lead to some TOE fast - intuitive insights and ideas are important here, too.Zephirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-26789984305606777222010-01-12T09:04:00.000-08:002010-01-12T09:08:06.435-08:00AWT and cellular automata modelThis post is a reaction to recent NS article <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427381.100-stephen-wolfram-im-an-information-pack-rat.html">'I'm an information pack rat'</a>, which deals with personality of Stephen Wolfram. But who first had the idea that the universe is a cellular automaton? Konrad Zuse? Edward Fredkin? <a href="http://shell.cas.usf.edu/%7Ewclark/ANKOS_zuse_fredkin_thesis.html">Certainly not</a> Stephen Wolfram. Apparently it's not the <a href="http://shell.cas.usf.edu/%7Ewclark/ANKOS_rule_110.html">first case</a> of foreign ideas "packed" by Wolfram [Jim Giles, <i>Nature</i> 417, 216 - 218 (2002)].<br />
<br />
In 1969 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konrad_Zuse#Calculating_Space" rel="nofollow">Konrad Zuse</a> published a book called <a href="ftp://ftp.idsia.ch/pub/juergen/zuserechnenderraum.pdf" rel="nofollow">Rechnender Raum</a> (translated later as "Digital space") theorizing, that <a href="http://www.idsia.ch/%7Ejuergen/digitalphysics.html" rel="nofollow">the universe was a cellular automaton</a>. Juergen Schmidhuber discusses this on his website: <a href="http://www.idsia.ch/%7Ejuergen/digitalphysics.html">Zuse's Thesis: The Universe is a Computer</a>, that Konrad Zuse had the idea that the universe is running on a grid of computers as early as 1967. On the other hand, Plamen Petrov, being unaware of Zuse's work at the time, earlier dubbed this idea <a href="http://digitalphysics.org/Faq/">Fredkin's Thesis</a>. Recently Schmidhuber observed, "Even earlier, <a href="http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/%7Ehistory/Mathematicians/Leibniz.html">Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz</a> (who not only co-invented calculus but also built the first mechanical multiplier in 1670) caused a stir by claiming that everything is computable". Although it's clear, that Leibniz did not formulate the notion of a cellular automaton as such.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, apparently Wolfram does not intend to imply that the universe is a classical cellular automaton--at least if you read the fine print. In the Notes for Chapter 9 on pages 1026 and 1027 of his book Wolfram does acknowledge the work of Zuse and Fredkin in a single sentence. Then he goes on to say that "<i>no literal mechanistic model can ever in the end realistically be expected to work</i>." I take this to refer to classical cellular automata. In his usual modest way he says, "...<i>what must happen relies on phenomena discovered in this book--and involves the emergence of complex properties</i>..." <br />
<br />
<br />
It is not the first time that Wolfram has annoyed complexity researchers, who feel that he routinely fails to recognize the contributions made by others. "He tends to acknowledge people in two-point type," says one researcher. Indeed, A New Kind of Science lacks conventional references to prior work - although scientists and mathematicians including Cook are acknowledged in the book's notes section.<br />
<br />
No doubt, Stephen Wolfram is reinnnesance personality of modern era. But I don't share ideas concerning cellular automata model of reality - in my opinion the appearance of Universe follows from principles of energy & information spreading in completely random particle system, i.e. it's randomness at its very very best. The problem of Stephen Wolfram is, he is overspecialized and biased to complexity perspective - so I'm perceiving his ideas as abstract and ad-hoced. After all, completely random Universe requires less strong postulates from Occam's razor perspective.<br />
<br />
But we still could understand such stance from perspective of <i>Simillia simillibus observatur</i> theorem of AWT: every expert tends to see Universe in the light of its own specialization. Relativist would see it relativistic, aetherists like me would see it through particle field and computer scientist and mathematician would see it as a huge simulation or cellular automata model. It's logical, because every density fluctuation of Aether would interact with another fluctuations, which are similar in shape, size, energy density and so on.Zephirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-57163229431109613682010-01-10T20:45:00.000-08:002010-01-10T23:20:25.069-08:00Does gravity not exist on behalf of holografic memory?This post is a reaction to recent article <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785">On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton </a>of dutch theorist <a href="http://www.blogger.com/find/hep-th/1/au:+Verlinde_E/0/1/0/all/0/1">Erik P. Verlinde</a>. Albeit <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Verlinde">Verlinde is string theorist</a>, his finding has basically nothing to do with string theory and it's logical connection to <a href="http://www.crystalinks.com/holographic.html">holographic model</a> proposed is extremely vague here. When random gas exhibits entropic behavior, it still doesn't make it a hologram, some memory the less and it requires a huge portion of fantasy to interpret it in such a way.<br />
<br />
Maybe string theory or holographic theory are related to entropy quantity in some abstract way (albeit I can see nothing entropic in their postulates with exception of <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/02/consistence-problem-of-string-theory.html">vagueness</a>) - but the connection of Aether gas concept to entropy is still much more straightforward and transparent (entropy quantity original derivation was based on Boltzmann gas concept). This is simply how analogy differs from vague homologies: by absence of additional manifolds in causal space.<br />
<br />
"<i>Starting from first principles and general assumptions Newton's law of gravitation is shown to arise naturally and unavoidably in a theory in which space is emergent through a holographic scenario. Gravity is explained as an entropic force caused by changes in the information associated with the positions of material bodies. A relativistic generalization of the presented arguments directly leads to the Einstein equations. When space is emergent even Newton's law of inertia needs to be explained. The equivalence principle leads us to conclude that it is actually this law of inertia whose origin is entropic</i>".<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.scientificblogging.com/hammock_physicist/it_bit_case_gravity">If it smells like entropy</a>, and it behaves like entropy, it's probably a Boltzmann gas...;-) We simply <i>cannot have</i> an abstract entropy quantity existing as such without underlying physical system (usually inertial particle gas or fluid), which maintains the laws of statistics. Emergence is just another postmodern word for ancient Aether model, described by gas (thermodynamics) or by fluid (hydrodynamics) models. Eric expressed it unvillingly in interview with the newspaper <i><a href="http://www.blogger.com/wiki/De_Volkskrant" title="De Volkskrant">de Volkskrant</a></i>:<br />
<br />
"<i>On the smallest level Newton's laws don't apply, but they do for apples and planets. You can compare this to pressure of gas. Molecules themselves don't have any pressure, but a barrel of gas has</i>."<br />
<br />
The same, just more vague conclusion former string theorist Lubos Motl got <a href="http://tinyurl.com/ydar36a">on his blog</a>:<br />
<br />
"<i>I find it somewhat unlikely that "bulk physics" may be really derived without any "bulk physics</i>". <br />
<br />
While Motl's intuition was exceptionally right in this particular case, the above approach is exactly, what the string theory or quantum gravity did all the time (the formal strings or quantum loops, i.e. Aether density fluctuations are the same temporal aspect of dense gas behavior, like entropic character of energy shielding, i.e. the gravity). We should realize, comments of Mr. Motl <a href="http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/luminiferous-aether-and-physical.html">aren't Aether theory motivated</a> in any way - but by fact, Verlinde's rather insightful work has nothing to do with string theory. Mr. Motl just feels some competition of his pet string theory in the air. But the true insights concerning formal entropy models of elementary particles were achieved before few years in <a href="http://quantoken.blogspot.com/2005/02/predictions-of-guitar-theory.html">GUITAR theory of Quantoken</a>.<br />
<br />
Concerning "Newtonian physics", Newton <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27slawofuniversalgravitation#History">believed</a>, gravity force is indirectly proportional to distance with compare to R. Hooke, who claimed the inverse square law on background of former Alhacen's work. Just the Aether model of Newton's friend <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Fatio_de_Duillier">Nicolas Fatio de Duillier</a> convicted Newton to change his opinion on behalf to inverse square law - we can see, Newton's physical intuition was far not so brilliant, as it's believed usually. Duillier's model was later <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation">extended by Le Sage</a> and so far we have no other working theory of gravity based on physical, i.e. not completely abstract ad-hoced model, separated from observable reality.<br />
<br />
The apparent inability of physicists to distinguish trivial particle system beneath all these noble abstract ideas about thermodynamics, entropy and emergent holographic scenarios is striking. Even worse, it's a sort of modern religion or political decision - supposedly the both. Other extrapolations of this work <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/anrnb/dutch_string_theorist_erik_verlinde_gravity_does/">assigned to Verlinde</a> (?):<br />
<br />
"<i>Gravity does not exist. The whole universe is a giant holographic memory that gets more and more filled with data as time evolves. This filling of the cosmic memory we interpret as gravity. What if the memory gets full? Than you find yourself in a black hole.</i>"<br />
<br />
are bringing logical questions, whether these ideas are really consistent with present model of black hole as a physical singularity or whether gravity doesn't apply to interior of black hole, or whether it can not exist something, which we can measure reliably. After all, such naively abstract ideas separated from reality are typical for both many formal theorists of present era, both their layman interpreters.Zephirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-50631761809793745242010-01-09T19:58:00.000-08:002010-01-09T20:21:43.138-08:00Universe and the rainbow of black holesThe substantial portion of AWT analogies is based on geometrical convergence of low-energy and high energy density phenomena. Recently <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/07/awt-and-metamaterial-character-of.html">metamaterial foam</a> models of vacuum gained a popularity, thus sopporting the AWT model. Concept of foam is quite general in AWT and it can bring a most general understanding of things like <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2008/09/mass-of-photon.html">rest mass of photon</a> and dependence of photon dynamic mass to wavelength, <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2008/11/aether-and-symmetry-world.html">CPT symmetry breaking</a> and <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2008/09/structure-of-observable-reality.html">general appearance</a> of the observable Universe.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/waves/metamater/metamater_vacuum.gif" /> <br />
</div><br />
In AWT foam structure is an emergent result of incoming light dispersion by field of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation">CMB fluctuations</a> (i.e. <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/09/awt-and-gravitational-waves.html">gravitational waves</a>) and as such it depends on observational perspective - the more, the more is distant from local human scale. From AWT perspective Universe is quite random environment, and extremely low portion of energy can spread through it in pure transversal way, thus raising the existence of causal observational perspective of human creatures. This perspective is sampling the causal portion of Universe in such way, it ignores dispersion of radiation nearly completely.<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/aether/gravitons.gif" /><br />
</div>In real life such perspective corresponds the observation of heavy rain, where droplets get so densely arranged, they could be considered a foamy system consisting of mixture of density gradients with both positive, both negative curvatures. This geometry corresponds the geometry of density fluctuations inside of dense gas or supercritical fluid, the structure of CMB noise and the graviton foam expected in early Universe (in AWT graviton foam is the CMB noise observed from sufficiently distant perspective - compare the <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/09/awt-and-big-bang-theory.html">Big Bang model</a> of AWT).<br />
<br />
Under normal circumstances, the outer surfaces of rain droplets with positive curvature are more pronounced, so that normal dispersion prevails and one rainbow is formed. But at the case of heavy rain the anomalous dispersion on inner surfaces of rain droplets becomes dominant and the secondary rainbow is formed. <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/waves/metamater/rainbow.jpg"><img alt="Alexander's band" border="0" height="214" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/waves/metamater/rainbow.jpg" title="Alexandrův pás duhy mezi oblastí normální a anomální disperze" width="275" /></a><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div>Between primary and secondary bows the dark Alexander's band is formed. This dark are is named after <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_of_Aphrodisias">Alexander of Aphrodisias,</a> who first described it. It occurs due to the deviation angles of the primary and secondary rainbows. Both bows exist due to an optical effect called the angle of minimum deviation. Light which is deviated at smaller angles than this can never reach the observer. The minimum deviation angle for the primary bow is 137.5°. Light can be deviated up to 180°, causing it to be reflected right back to the observer. Light which is deviated at intermediate angles brightens the inside of the rainbow. The minimum deviation angle for the secondary bow is about 230°. The fact that this angle is greater than 180° makes the secondary bow an inside-out version of the primary. Its colors are reversed, and light which is deviated at greater angles brightens the sky outside the bow.<br />
<br />
From AWT perspective the observation of primary rainbow corresponds the observation of large massive body, white hole surface in particular. The secondary bow corresponds the inner surface of foamy streaks of dark matter, consisting mainly of antimatter particles, heavily expanded during inflation. This perspective renders dark matter streaks as a <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2010/01/is-dark-matter-of-large-gallaxies.html">symmetric phenomena</a> of black hole surfaces. The Alexander band with no apparent dispersion itself corresponds the observation of space-time brane (a "transparent window"), forming cosmic space from insintric perspective. This model explains, the dispersion is restricted to narrow band, forming the physical surfaces of massive bodies, so that vacuum appears <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/08/awt-and-grb090510-photon-controversy.html">basically dispersion-less</a>, but it appears dark (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox">Olbers' paradox</a>) at the price.<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kramers-Kronig_relations"><img alt="Závislost rychlosti a propustnosti disperze na vlnové délce" border="0" height="186" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/waves/metamater/disperabsorpt.gif" title="Závislost rychlosti a propustnosti disperze na vlnové délce" width="250" /></a><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">The absorption and refraction coefficients are related by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kramers-Kronig_relations">Kronig-Kramers equations</a>, named in honor of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Kronig">Ralph Kronig</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_Anthony_Kramers">Hendrik Anthony Kramer</a>. By these equations dispersion is volume phenomena of longitudinal waves and refraction the product of surface gradients, where transversal waves are involved. These functions are dependent to dimensional scale (i.e. wavelength) and phase shifted by half-period in causal space due the Lorentz/Wick rotation. Because hypersphere surface is first derivation of its volume, it basically means, dispersion curve is first derivation of absorption spectrum.<br />
<br />
This simple dependence explains the symmetry breaking observed inside of our gradient driven reality, because the minimal speed (the position denoted by red circle on the above graph) of transversal energy spreading in dispersive spreading isn't exactly symmetric to position of absorption maximum. The requirement of minimal speed of transversal wave spreading follows from nearly infinite size of observable Universe. This effectively mean, symmetry violation is a consequence of the large space-time observed via density fluctuations of inhomogeneous environment and we can observe these fundamental connections even during rainy weather.<br />
</div>Zephirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-44831189727455944602010-01-09T19:49:00.000-08:002010-01-09T19:51:29.176-08:00Is dark matter of large gallaxies supersymmetric to black holes?This post is a reaction to recent NS article "<a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18362-missing-matter-mystery-in-small-galaxies.html">Missing dark matter mystery in small galaxies</a>". It's <a href="http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Dwarf_Galaxies_Need_Dark_Matter_Too_999.html">well known</a>, large galaxies and galactic clusters are relatively abundant to dark matter with compare the smaller ones. This finding could have certain meaning in <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2008/10/awt-inflation-and-brane-cosmology.html">AWT cosmology</a>, in which large gallaxies were formed by evaporation of central black holes, whereas smaller ones were formed rather by accretion (i.e. by classical mechanism with respect to contemporary cosmology). Another ideas presented in connection with this model was <a href="http://www.physorg.com/news11798.html">dark star origin</a> of gallaxies and the <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090713-dark-matter-shield.html">shielding effect of dark matter</a>. This effect is understandable with respect to AWT mechanism, because of large content of <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/03/is-dark-matter-composed-of-antimatter.html">antimatter considered</a> in dark matter, which could have antigravity action at large distances. Presence of heavily ionized atom nuclei trapped makes dark matter detectable by X-ray telescopes, like Chandra.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><img border="0" height="189" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/astronomy/darkmatter/dark_matter_hallo.jpg" width="199" /><br />
</div><br />
It would mean, dark matter is in fact super-symmetric effect of black holes inside of galaxies. Without presence of central black holes the galaxies cannot contain material particles around it, because of no evaporation. This idea could have some meaning in holographic theory of Universe, too. This could explain both absence of dark matter outside, both black holes outside of small galaxies. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/astronomy/darkmatter/separation3.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/astronomy/darkmatter/separation3.gif" /></a><br />
</div>But the whole subject is still quite speculative in this moment and additional observational data are required. Recently Hubble <a href="http://hubble%20provides%20new%20evidence%20for%20dark%20matter%20around%20small%20galaxies%20/">has found</a> another evidence of dark matter presence near small galaxies. <a href="http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Zoology-and-wildlife-conservation/Lost-and-found-dark-matter-in-elliptical-galaxies-Vigorous-star-formation-hidden-by-dust-in-a-galaxy.html">This study demonstrated</a>, that the low-velocities of stars observed around dwarf galaxies are infact compatible with galaxy formation in dark-matter haloes. Stellar orbits in the outer regions of the resulting elliptical are very elongated, which can explain the observed velocities even in the presence of large amounts of dark matter.Zephirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-62762182904738646722010-01-09T06:31:00.000-08:002010-02-24T19:10:46.242-08:00AWT and theory of human conscioussnessThis post is a reaction to recent <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/">NS article</a> "<a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527427.100-you-wont-find-consciousness-in-the-brain.html">You won't find consciousness in the brain</a>". In AWT perspective human brain is essentially a condensate of consciousness. This is because every atemporal particle exhibits a traits of conscious behavior: they're moving accross density gradient of vacuum while sniffing for another density gradients via gravitational force/waves like for food, while avoiding the anti-gravity (pressure of radiation). In similar way bacteria or protozoa are following the density gradients of chemical energy concentration, while avoiding heat and another dangers. Analogously, human brain maintains number of solitons, i.e. selfreinforcing wave packets, which are spreading through it like particles of observable reality, which they simulate in advance - so we can say, human brain is sort of simulator of quantum foam, which manifest itself by foamy structure of dark matter at large scale. Therefore it's nothing strange, structure of neurons in simmilar to structure of dark matter streaks and the wavelength of neural solitons (so called <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/01/awt-and-human-scale.html">human scale</a>) correspond the wavelength of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation">CMB radiation</a>, into which is adopted for by "<i>Similia simillibus observatur</i>"<i> </i>principle.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/simulation/incompressible/incompressible.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="215" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/simulation/incompressible/incompressible.gif" width="213" /></a></div><br />
The insintric property of solitons is, they're making their foamy environment more dense in similar way, like soap foam condenses under shaking temporarily. By Schrodinger equation the mass density of quantum string is proportional by its energy in each space and time interval by E=mc2 equation. You can play with this quantum wave aspect of foamy environment behavior by using <a href="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/simulation/incompressible/index.htm" rel="nofollow">Java applet hereing</a>. So when two or more solitons met together, the third soliton will use this place preferably.<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/biology/neurology/membraneimt1.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Model neuronové membrány s iontovým kanálem" border="0" height="177" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/biology/neurology/membraneimt1.gif" title="Model neuronové membrány s iontovým kanálem" width="252" /></a></div><br />
By recent studies neural solitons are sound waves supported by electrochemical activity of neural cell membranes. The membrane potential contracts the membrane, which is in elastic liquid crystal state. After sound wave arrival the membrane potencial is discharged by diffusion of ions via ion channels and the membrane surface follows a self reinforcing wave, i.e. a soliton. The whole process repeats itself in ~100 Hz cycle.<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"> </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/biology/neurology/microtubules.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Průřez neurony s viditelnou strukturou mikrotubulů" border="0" height="209" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/biology/neurology/microtubules.jpg" title="Průřez neurony s viditelnou strukturou mikrotubulů" width="214" /></a></div>At the case of highly nonlinear neurons of vertebrates the foamy, extradimensional character of sound wave propagation is forced by internal structure of microtubules in analogous way, in which soliton character of signal in modern hollow-core optical cables is maintained. These fibers served for recent demonstration of quantum phenomena, like event horizons of black holes and Hawking radiation. It means, neuron wave is spreading like evanescent wave in this environment through whole diameter of neuron, thus increasing its nonlinear character under slowing of neuron speed at the price. This mechanism requires to keep temperature of nerves in a quite close range (corresponding the Lifshitz point of quantum criticality), where the liquid crystal nature of membranes is maintained. The cold blooded marine invertebrates are using different strategy and they're increasing speed and eliminating dispersion of solitons by huge diameter of neurons.<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"> <img alt="Průřez optickým kablem s voštinovitou strukturou" border="0" height="188" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/light/optics/HollowFibre.jpg" title="Průřez optickým kablem s voštinovitou strukturou" width="185" /></div><div style="text-align: left;">By excellent <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebbian_theory">Hebbian theory</a> of synaptic plasticity this aspect of soliton behavior is represented by principle "<i>cells that fire together, wire together</i>". When one cell repeatedly assists in firing another, the axon of the first cell develops synaptic knobs (or enlarges them if they already exist) in contact with the soma of the second cell. In this mechanism the principle of associative learning and long-term memory is realized. The process of synapses building is maintained during REM phase of sleep, because its based on dream simulation, where perceptions from outside are suppressed due the strong positive feedback of learning phase. In this way, our brain is gradually becoming terminal board hard-wired for optimal solutions of individual problems, represented by preferred paths of soliton spreading. Maybe the artificial W.I.K.I brain from famous <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0343818/">I, robot movie</a> isn't the matter of so distant future.<br />
<br />
Schrödinger 1958: <i>A physical scientist does not introduce awareness (sensation or perception) into his theories, and having thus removed the mind from nature, he cannot expect to find it there.</i></div>Zephirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.com17tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-76507406763504380132010-01-01T23:12:00.000-08:002010-03-03T16:51:12.950-08:00Mainstream physics and Cargo Cult science.From Richard Feynman’s “<a href="http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Cargo_cult_science" onclick="javascript:urchinTracker('/outbound/www.physics.brocku.ca/etc/cargo_cult_science.html');" rel="nofollow">Cargo Cult Science</a>” (also included in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393316041" onclick="javascript:urchinTracker('/outbound/www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393316041');" rel="nofollow"><i>Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!</i></a>):<br />
<blockquote>"<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>There have been many experiments running rats through all kinds of mazes, and so on–with little clear result. But in 1937 a man named Young did a very interesting one. He had a long corridor with doors all along one side where the rats came in, and doors along the other side where the food was. He wanted to see if he could train the rats to go in at the third door down from wherever he started them off. No. The rats went immediately to the door where the food had been the time before.</i></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>The question was, how did the rats know, because the corridor was so beautifully built and so uniform, that this was the same door as before? <br />
Obviously there was something about the door that was different from the other doors. So he painted the doors very carefully, arranging the textures on the faces of the doors exactly the same. Still the rats could tell. Then he thought maybe the rats were smelling the food, so he used chemicals to change the smell after each run. Still the rats could tell. Then he realized the rats might be able to tell by seeing the lights and the arrangement in the laboratory like any commonsense person. So he covered the corridor, and still the rats could tell.</i></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>He finally found that they could tell by the way the floor sounded when they ran over it. And he could only fix that by putting his corridor in sand. So he covered one after another of all possible clues and finally was able to fool the rats so that they had to learn to go in the third door. If he relaxed any of his conditions, the rats could tell.</i></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Now, from a scientific standpoint, that is an A-number-one experiment. That is the experiment that makes rat-running experiments sensible, because it uncovers that clues that the rat is really using– not what you think it’s using. And that is the experiment that tells exactly what conditions you have to use in order to be careful and control everything in an experiment with rat-running</i>.</span>"</blockquote><br />
The similar mistake was done before 130+ years when comparing Michelson-Morley experiments concerning light spreading in vacuum to spreading of waves in material fields. By using of these experiments was deduced, vacuum doesn't behave like material field, because it doesn't exhibit a reference frame for motion (in fact it does it via weak <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging">Lense-Thirring effect</a> in Aether density gradients and/or various supersymmetry phenomena due space-time expansion - but this is another story). But the conditions of both experiments weren't equivalent. The observation of light wave spreading by using of light waves in Michelson-Morley experiment is NOT an equivalent of observation of material wave by using of light waves, because two kinds of waves are involved in later experiment with compare to former one.<br />
<br />
In such way, mainstream science did the similar mistake when interpreting M-M experiment, like Mr. Young did, because these two experiments weren't done in analogous way, i.e. under consistent arrangement. The physicists <i>just believed</i>, they're doing analogous experiments in similar way, like native people engaging in imitative behavior of "cargo cult". Only one person in Einsteinian era was supposedly capable to spot the difference, i.e. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Joseph_Lodge">Oliver Lodge</a> - but his opinions were widely ignored both by aetherists, both by mainstream science due his tendency to occultism and paranormal phenomena in his later age.<br />
<br />
Anyway, it's crazy situation - at least from present perspective of the future of science history..Zephirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-72304082148516974312009-12-12T14:35:00.000-08:002010-03-21T10:20:39.428-07:00Don't Blame Cows for Climate ChangeGlobal warming (GW) is well proven complex of climate changes, which manifests mainly by increase of area of deserts and by glacier melting in latest 50 - 70 years.<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/globalwarming/glacier_thinning.gif" /></div><br />
Because thermal capacity of oceanic water is at least 5.000x higher, then this one of atmosphere, global mean temperature of atmosphere is much less relevant, then the global mean temperature of ocean. And this temperature is still raising in accordance to increase of carbon dioxide concentration, despite the weak slow down of warming of atmosphere in recent decade.<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/globalwarming/ocean_temp1.gif" /></div><br />
Other phenomena, like increase of global temperature of atmosphere aren't so relevant for GW, because they undergo <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o-Southern_Oscillation">El-Nina / El-Nino cycle</a> and solar cycle due the wobble of center of mass in Sun-Jupiter system (because mean solar cycle <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_cycles">is faster</a> then Jupiter period, it's probable, some other planets are affecting it, too). The center of mass controls the direction of global current of plasma beneath surface of Sun, which affects the frequency of sun spots (i.e. magnetic bubbles in plasma, raising to surface) and solar eruptions. The charged particles of solar wind penetrating the atmosphere of Earth are serving like condensation nuclei of fog and snow and they're making Earth surface more reflective.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The effect of ocean heating is not so straightforward. In general, it increases the number of convective cells in our atmosphere and frequency of their switching in similar way, like during heating of water in open vessel. Note that this change increases continental character of the weather, so that above continents the global warming may even lead to temperature records on both sides of temperature scale.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><img border="0" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/globalwarming/convective_cells.gif" /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">At the moment, when convective circulation switches from horizontal to vertical, an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age">ice age period </a>may occur, because Earth becomes intensively cooled. This is forced by hysteresis, because snow-white surface of Earth becomes more reflective at the same time. Just after cooling of oceans (which takes some time due their thermal capacity) the warm period is restored. Here are some indicia, the start of ice age can be very fast (compare the disaster movie <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0319262/">Day after tomorrow</a>) and period of fast paced global warming had preceded this event in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas">younger dryas period</a>, so maybe we are facing ice age soon.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div>Concerning the hypothesis of man made global warming, it's proven statistically, people are making weather warmer and drier on per week basis (<a href="http://www.greendaily.com/2008/08/28/europes-rainy-weekends-are-man-made">1</a>, <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/146120.stm">2</a>), so no further evidence is necessary - we can just extrapolate these weekend fluctuations to decades of years. During last warming periods the rise of carbon dioxide followed warming with delay of many decades with compare to present situation - so we can see this argument of many skeptics rather as another evidence for man-made origin of global warming. In addition, we can consider for example <a href="http://facstaff.uww.edu/travisd/pdf/climatepapermar04.pdf">September 11, 2001 climate impact study</a>. Measurements showed that without contrails, the local diurnal temperature range (difference of day and night temperatures) was about 1 degree Celsius higher than immediately before.<br />
<br />
In my opinion, human activity started irreversible process, which couldn't be reversed so easily due the hysteresis described above. Nevertheless, we should save money from carbon dioxide taxes for faster research of alternative energy sources to replace fossil fuel as soon, as possible. This would be useful with respect to both prevention of ice age period, both prevention of another rise of carbon dioxide concentration. Carbon dioxide dissolves the shells of coral and plankton, thus destroys the fishing grounds and diversity of biosphere.<br />
<br />
But the main risk of fossil fuel depletion is the global nuclear war for the rest of their sources. It's generally ignored, the reason of the recent oil & food price crisis was always lost USA war. These wars are very expensive and at the case of global nuclear conflict the things would get even way, way worse.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/globalwarming/food_prices.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/globalwarming/food_prices.gif" /></a></div>Concerning the rise of carbon dioxide, assigned to farming of poor countries, often neglected point is, many animals are able to collect proteins from life environment more efficiently, then the agricultural plants by using of solar radiation, because they can consume even the plants growing in wild, which people cannot. Which is the reason, why people in rain forests, deserts or arctic areas are feeded by meat preferably - the farming of moose is apparently more economical and therefore ecological(!) there, then the growing of plants. <br />
<br />
For example, for production of rice it's required 2552 m³ of water/ ton rice, whereas for production of one ton of poultry 3809 m³ of water <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_meat_production">its required</a>. Therefore the consumption of poultry may sound like ineffective waste of water for someone - but the content of proteins in rice is ten times lower, then in chicken meat! This explains, why people from deserts in Chad or Mongolia are living from pasturage, instead of agriculture. I even suspect, farming is more ecological then the agriculture as a whole, providing it doesn't use agricultural products (which usually does). Methane released by cows on pastures is negligible with compare to amount of methane, released by annual decomposition of plants without cows.<br />
<br />
"<i>Those who do not think about the future, do not deserve to have one</i>."Zephirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.com75tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-51075483931413637452009-12-12T04:02:00.000-08:002016-02-27T16:17:08.723-08:00AWT and cyclic evolutionThis post is an reaction to recent study of thousands of species of plants and animals, which suggests, that new species may arise from rare events instead of through an accumulation of small changes made in response to changes in the environment. This is basically an emergent mechanism of AWT, so we can find many analogies of this finding in both social, both physical systems.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://cdn.phys.org/newman/gfx/news/hires/2009/2000px-Tree_of_life_with_genome_size_svg.jpg"><img border="0" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/aether/evolution/evolution.gif" height="308" id="lightboxImage" width="281" /></a></div>
<br />
It's well known, human society is evolving "in circles", too. Many human inventions (<a href="http://www.livescience.com/history/061129_anitkythera_mech.html">Antikythera machine</a> and gear mechanism), theories (plenum or Aether theory) or social arrangement (the constitution and voting systems) were forgotten and reinvented and subsequentially abandoned later again. We can see it as an analogy with spreading of energy in particle system, for example in ripples at water surface, which transforms gradually from longitudinal (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_noise">Brownian noise</a>) into transversal (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capillary_wave">capillary waves</a>) and back into longitudinal (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_wave">gravity waves</a>) again.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/waves/distance_scale.gif" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/waves/distance_scale.gif" height="179" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
A dual model consist in nested particle condensation: the effects of tiny density fluctuations are cumulating in emergent way, until it transforms into new homogeneous phase, in which density of fluctuations increases gradually until it forms nearly homogeneous phase in which... etc... Note, that we can observe a dark matter or supersymmetry phenomena here: the chaotic portion of quantitative models can ofter serve for formulation of new qualitative models and vice versa in simmilar way, like electric field transforms into magnetic one and back again during light wave spreading through vacuum.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/light/photon.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/light/photon.gif" height="203" width="320" /></a></div>
This transform corresponds incident structure of Leaky Quantum Gravity (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity">LQG</a>) theory related to Möbius transform, which is isomorphic to restricted Lorentz group - so if Universe or black hole appears like doughnut, it becomes broken in symmetry (i.e. <a href="http://www.georgehart.com/bagel/bagel.html">sliced</a>) in recursive way of Möbius strip of Klein bottle. We can met with this geometry in<a href="http://members.chello.nl/%7En.benschop/electron.pdf"> Möbius strip structure of electron</a> or inside of atom nuclei in structure of hadrons (see the <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/12/awt-and-quark-model-of-hadrons.html">previous post</a>). In archetypal and <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2008/09/sacred-geometry-and-aether-concept.html">sacred geometry</a> we can met with this concept in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uroboros">Ouroboros archetype</a> (based supposedly on <i><a href="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/Cordylus%20giganteus%20Uroboros.jpg">Cordylus giganteus</a></i> scink observations).<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
<a href="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/light/photons.gif"><img border="0" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/light/photons.gif" height="165" width="165" /></a> <a href="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/aether/Cordylus%20giganteus%20Uroboros0.jpg"><img border="0" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/aether/Cordylus%20giganteus%20Uroboros0.jpg" height="165" /></a><br />
<br /></div>
For example, mainstream physics is now in the phase, when the number of various theories developed in formal models in rather ad-hoced way increased above critical level, so that new meta-theories started to emerge. These meta-theories are now in their protoscience state like vague density fluctuations forming inside of dense gas - but we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water too soon, because the formal approach apparently reached its limits. We can call it an informational singularity, but I'd prefer rather gradualistic view of this process, in which phase-shifted boundaries of both formal, both non-formal approaches are fuzzy and they traveling together in duality like zone of crystallization through <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_%28philosophy_of_time%29">block universe</a> (<a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9805076">1</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.0808">2</a>), or - even better - like the <a href="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/light/light_dipole.gif">light wave</a> spreading through vacuum.<br />
<br />
The model of EM wave spreading is consistent with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen">Red Queen Theory</a> of co-evolution, based on constant <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_arms_race">evolutionary arms race</a> between competing species. For example the high number of insects or deep sea species can be explained by adaptation to predators or parasites, which are specialized to its prey, where we can find many examples of co-evolution. During this genotypes <a href="http://www.indiana.edu/%7Ecurtweb/Research/Red_Queen%20hyp.html">oscillate over time</a> in waves phase-shifted by their half-period, as if they were "running" in circles and informational event horizons are formed in accordance of paleobiological <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium"> theory of punctuated equilibrium</a>. It means, from local perspective we can see certain steps in gradualist evolution, which corresponds nested phase transforms in AWT. <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/aether/evolution/arms_race.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/aether/evolution/arms_race.gif" /></a></div>
This model <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium_in_social_theory">has its analogies</a> in social systems, too. <a href="http://www.frozenevolution.com/">Frozen plasticity theory</a> (<a href="http://www.vesmir.cz/clanky/clanek/id/7216">article in Czech</a>), which is based on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory">game theory</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene">selfish gene</a> model considers, only portion of population can evolve freely, after certain time it becomes unable of further evolution and after catastrophic change it will not survive. This character of evolution, which occurs when natural conditions are changing fast (as the result of impact of asteroids, global volcanic or man-made fossil fuels burning activity) could be explained by reservoir of sleeping genes in so called the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_DNA">"junk" DNA"</a>, which are activated in poor life situation of organisms (i.e. infection by virulent agents), where horizontal gene transfers via RNA takes place.<br />
<br />
The basic point here is, "junk" DNA is not junk at all, but it doesn't serve for production of proteins, but various RNAs, which are serving both like enhancers or suppressors of transcription of proximal genes, which are used by <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/02/awt-and-bees-colony-collapse-disorder.html">immune system</a> for production of antibodies, for example. This is particularly because fylogenetic evolution is too slow to accommodate changes in life environment, represented by various infections and parasites. We can expect, at the very beginning of fast-paced organic life, whole genetic variability was represented just by RNA, as DNA is more advanced stuff. This flexibility can explain Lamarckian offspring of fast adaptation to large infections or environmental catastrophes.<br />
<br />
Because these events can repeat, we can find many traits of cyclic evolution in repetitive occurrence of many genes observed in "junk" DNA. Recently, experimental results by Gariaev et al indicate that some, and perhaps important, aspects of genetic regulation are mediated at a quantum level (<a href="http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/dna-wave.doc">1</a>, <a href="http://www.emergentmind.org/gariaev06.htm">2</a> - possibly via quantum mirage mechanism).Zephirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-57909717778733633052009-12-12T01:18:00.000-08:002009-12-16T14:22:49.939-08:00AWT and quark model of hadrons<div style="text-align: left;">Using precise data recently gathered at three different laboratories and some new theoretical tools, Gerald A. Miller, a UW physics professor, <a href="http://focus.aps.org/story/v22/st11">has found</a> that the neutron has a negative charge both in its inner core and its outer edge, with a positive charge sandwiched in between to make the particle electrically neutral.<br />
</div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/nuclear/neutron_charge.gif" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/nuclear/neutron_charge.gif" /></a><br />
</div>This finding can be explained easily by particle model of AWT, in which more energetic/massive down-quarks (3.5–6.0 MeV/c2) are concentrated bellow up-quark (1.5–3.3 MeV/c2) near the center of neutron, like inside of gravitationaly coupled <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efimov_effect">Eefimov state</a> of three massive bodies of different mass, predicted in 1970. We can consider it a quantum gravity effect at low scale - compare the AWT's knot model of neutron and proton. The same structure, just inverse one is relevant for proton, where uncompensated isospin charge of up quarks manifests itself by electrostatic charge at distance.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/nuclear/3quarkshadrons.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/nuclear/3quarkshadrons.gif" /></a><br />
</div><br />
Efimov states exists on every dimensional scale, for example inside of hadrons and boson condensates or superconductors. Note, that Efimov trimer state becomes flat, when all particles involved are of the same mass - so its responsible for fractional Hall charge (quantum Hall effect) in thin layers of <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/07/aether-and-graphene-behavior.html">graphene</a> or <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041119014419.htm">Hahn purpur</a> BaCuSi<span style="font-size: xx-small;">2</span>O<span style="font-size: xx-small;">6</span>, where path of electrons is geometrically degenerated (frustrated) into flat structure by external magnetic field. Analogously, higher - just less stable/probable - Efimov state <a href="http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0810/0810.3876.pdf">exist</a> in <a href="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/gravity/3body.gif">four-body systems</a> of boson condensates.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/gravity/3body.gif" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/gravity/3body.gif" /></a><br />
</div><br />
Efimov trimers are analogy of chaotic <a href="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/quantum/doublependullum.gif">double pendulum</a>, the rods of which are mediated by gravity force (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_problem#General_considerations:_solving_the_n-body_problem">N-body problem</a>). It just illustrates the limits of formal math to describe even conceptually quite simple systems, which belongs into realm of Aether theory and must be solved by particle simulations in iterative/recursive way.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/jokes/three_some_problem.gif" /><br />
</div>Zephirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-3522639772840801282009-12-08T16:40:00.000-08:002009-12-08T17:04:06.690-08:00Does weak equivalence break down at the quantum level?This post is motivated by <a href="http://www.physorg.com/news179481148.html">PhysOrg comment</a> of article <a href="http://epjd.edpsciences.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/epjd/abs/2009/07/d09128/d09128.html">Light-pulse atom interferometry in microgravity</a>. It's surprising, how deeply scientists are surprised by fact, pair of dual theories (relativity and quantum mechanics) are inconsistent mutually. Especially if they know already, these theories are giving quite different predictions, concerning energy density of vacuum or cosmological constants. I mean different in more than <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_catastrophe">one hundred orders of magnitude</a>. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle#The_Einstein_equivalence_principle">Weak equivalence</a> is indeed violated by Casimir force, which is proportional to cross-sectional area of massive objects instead of their mass, so that equivalence principle of general relativity <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/03/inconsistency-of-general-relativity.html">doesn't apply</a> here / and no large speculations are required about it, question marks the less. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/gravity/FatioLeSage1.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/gravity/FatioLeSage1.gif" /></a><br />
</div><br />
This insight basically means, quantum scale begins at Casimir force scale, which roughly corresponds the wavelength of cosmic microwave background radiation (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation">CMB</a>), which roughly corresponds the size of <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/01/awt-and-human-scale.html">transversal waves</a> inside of human brain. Photons of CMB are manifestation of gravitational waves, which are of longitudinal character, so that their shielding resulting in Casimir force is proportional to cross-sectional area (compare the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation">Duillier/LeSage theory</a> of gravitation). Note that the violation of equivalence principle is manifestation of violation of dimensionality of 4D space-time, i.e. the manifestation of <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/04/quest-for-hidden-dimensions.html">extradimensions</a> and nonzero <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2008/09/mass-of-photon.html">rest mass of photon</a> at the same moment. This force is in fact supersymmetric effect of relativity, i.e. the quantum mechanics effect, too.Zephirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-6286883272468253802009-11-13T16:33:00.000-08:002010-01-01T22:50:38.638-08:00AWT and supersymmetry<span style="font-size: x-small; line-height: 100%;">This post is motivated by recent <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/">New Scientist</a> <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427341.200-in-susy-we-trust-what-the-lhc-is-really-looking-for.html?full=true">article</a> about possibility to validate string theory by observation of s-tauons, or another supersymmetric particles. But such interpretation is not exact, as 4D space-time superalgebra was first discovered by soviet physicists Yuri Gol'fand and E. Likhtman, who extended the Poincaré algebra into a superalgebra and discovered supersymmetry in four spacetime dimensions in 1970 (published in 1971) together with Akulov-Volkov (1971/72) independently to string theory. At the same year, in 1971 Pierre Ramond, André Neveu and John Schwarz develop a string theory with fermions and bosons and Gervais and Sakita recognized a version of 2D world-sheet supersymmetry in the new fermionic string theory, i.e. supersymmetry algebra in two dimensions. This led to Wess and Zumino rediscovering 4D supersymmetry in 1973 (consider this <a href="http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/28388">concise review of SUSY history</a>). In general, superalgebra is spinor extension of quantum mechanics, which can be incorporated into whatever else quantum field theory including Standard Model and LQG (for example, Lee Smolin promoted it for advanced version of loop quantum gravity LQG II) - which effectively means, it cannot serve as an evidence of whatever particular theory, including large group of various string theories.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small; line-height: 100%;">In context of AWT, supersymmetry is special stuff, it shouldn't be mixed with symmetry as such. We can observe it at water surface, just in quite limited scope. At the water transversal surface waves (so called capillary waves) are dispersing gradually, thus changing itself into longitudinal waves (so called the gravity waves - don't confuse it with gravitational waves, albeit they've similar nature in AWT). We can see, how undulation in one plane shears in complex way, until it becomes undulation in perpendicular complex plane. This rotation is closely related to Poincaré transforms in relativity and Wick rotation in quantum mechanics and Weyl spinors in Cartan composite geometry. </span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small; line-height: 100%;"></span><br />
</div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/waves/distance_scale.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="159" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/waves/distance_scale.gif" width="365" /></a><br />
</div><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small; line-height: 100%;">Whereas waves in one plane could be considered as a bosons, the another waves resulting from dispersion are fermions and vice-versa. Note that the dispersion is symmetric with distance scale around distance scale of CMB wavelength - the very small waves of Brownian noise are longitudinal too! Therefore we can postulate general gauge group, which transforms bosons into fermions and vice-versa, infinitely on both sides of dimensional scale. In real world SUSY gauge symmetry remains broken heavily due the dispersion and subsequent lost of information, though - so we can observe only few members of it. More illustratively, you wouldn't see very much of longitudinal waves at water surface, while observing it via transversal waves and vice versa. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small; line-height: 100%;">If the surface waves couldn't disperse into density fluctuations of water, then the bosons and fermions (energy and matter carriers) would be destined to forever remain distinct. But in 1975 <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TVC-4718W97-YF&_coverDate=03%2F24%2F1975&_alid=413026066&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=5531&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=471e90fd5f1aa8b2f5e5a41e9e8d17f4">Haag-Lopuszanski-Sohnius theorem</a> named after Rudolf Haag, Jan Lopuszanski, and Martin Sohnius pointed out, that if one allows anticommuting operators as generators of the symmetry group, then there is possibility of unification of internal and space-time symmetries. Such a symmetry is called supersymmetry by now and it constitutes a large part of current research into particle physics. It means, SUSY is just another case of Aether dispersion phenomena at short scales.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small; line-height: 100%;">In addition, supersymmetry gauge group is closely connected with E8 Lie group and famous Lissi Garret's <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2008/09/e8-lie-group-and-aether-theory.html">E8-theory</a>: Every energy wave, exchanged between pair of particles (i.e. density fluctuations of foam) is behaving like less or more dense blob of foam, i.e. like gauge boson particle. Every boson can exchange its energy with another particles, including other gauge bosons, thus forming the another generation of intercalated s-particles. After then the E8 Lie group solves the nontrivial question: "<i>Which structure should have the tightest lattice of particles, exchanged/formed by another particles</i>?<i>".</i></span><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small; line-height: 100%;"><a href="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/aether/calibrationgroup.gif"><img border="0" height="217" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/aether/calibrationgroup.gif" width="217" /></a></span><br />
</div><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small; line-height: 100%;">In AWT supersymmetry could be based on idea, inside of gradient driven reality every gradient has its mass. When we pile a huge amount of lightweight particles, such pile would have a larger mass, then the simple sum of original particles, because it creates more pronounced gradient of mass density/space-time curvature along surface of resulting pile. The difference can be assigned to virtual particles, whose nature depends on the composition of original clusters. For example surface waves on large droplet of neutrinos will be formed by so called neutralinos. If we broke resulting cluster, we wouldn't find them in their individual state, as they evaporate into gravitational waves, i.e. tachyons. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small; line-height: 100%;">The same result follows from relativity theory as well, if we think a bit about it. From GR follows, every curvature of space has it's own energy density - this is basically, what Einstein's field equations are about. But as we know from E=mc^2 formula, every energy density can be assigned to its corresponding mass energy density, which should exhibit it's own additional gravitational field and resulting additional curvature of space. This idea can be applied ad infinitum onto resulting solution, which would make relativity recursively nested, implicit theory of geometrodynamics. The supersymmetry concept is just a small distance scale application of the above implicit property of general relativity. It could be demonstrated, analogous recursive principle can be applied to quantum mechanics too - and resulting fractal foam solution would be quite similar and forming general solution of quantum gravity.</span><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small; line-height: 100%;"><a href="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/separation3.gif"><img height="139" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/aether/separation3.gif" style="border-bottom: rgb(192,192,192) 1px solid; border-left: rgb(221,221,221) 1px solid; border-right: rgb(192,192,192) 1px solid; border-top: rgb(221,221,221) 1px solid; padding-bottom: 6px; padding-left: 6px; padding-right: 6px; padding-top: 6px;" width="329" /></a></span><br />
</div><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small; line-height: 100%;">Aether is not supposed to replace quantum and/or relativity religion. In addition, there are many concepts and models, which could be derived from Aether concept in a much more straightforward way, then just SUSY concept. It took me some time, when I realized, what the SUSY is all about. In this way, SUSY theory is achievement of mainstream physics - although Aether concept could help in its understanding substantially. SUSY theory has it's analogies even in context of biological sciences. Specialized parazites and predators could be considered as s-particles related to host organisms in process of energy dissipation. Whenever political situation changes, a new social layer of people emerges. These people are following newly formed gradient of energy density, thus blocking its further evolution, as they're playing for himself preferably. These conjunctural zealots have antigravity behavior and their fanaticism discourages another people, who could be interested about new idea - despite of how useful it could be. It's analogy of dark matter particles, which surrounds large particle clusters (strangelets) or galaxies, thus repulsing ordinary matter <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/03/is-dark-matter-composed-of-antimatter.html">on behalf of antimatter</a>. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small; line-height: 100%;">In AWT supersymmetric particles are surface waves of rather large dense clusters of ordinary particles, which are stabilized by their surface tension. For example, inside of neutron stars neutrons are stabilized against their decay into protons and electrons by huge hydrostatic pressure. But the same pressure exists inside of atom nuclei, which is behaving like tiny dense droplet. It's well known, inside of tiny water droplets high pressure exist due the surface tension of high surface curvature. In this way, the dense clusters of elementary particles can be stabilized against its decay in similar way, like inside of quark stars made of strange matter and they can merge with another particles of ordinary matter into another strangelets via avalanche like mechanism. IMO top quark Yukawa coupling used for <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/10/can-time-travelling-higgs-sabotage-lhc.html">Higgs boson detection</a>, nucleons </span><span style="font-size: x-small; line-height: 100%;">pairing </span><span style="font-size: x-small; line-height: 100%;">inside of atom nuclei, observation of pentaquarks, glueballs and</span><span lang="en-us" style="font-size: x-small; line-height: 100%;">/</span><span style="font-size: x-small; line-height: 100%;">or indicia of tetraneutron formation are all stuff of the same category and it could be attributed to SUSY. Recent spooky observation of muon pairs formation well outside of collider tube at FermiLab could serve as an indicia of formation of strangelet and/or s-muons as well. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small; line-height: 100%;">For example, dark matter is generally believed to be composed of so called WIMPs, some of which are supposed to be supersymmetric particles, predicted by SUSY. But such s-particles must remain very stable to be able to form dark matter - and we didn't observe them in accelerators yet. This is strange, especially in connection to arguments, LHC is indeed safe, because much more energetic cosmic rays doesn't form s-particles, too. Many people argument the risk of black holes formation in LHC by fact, cosmic rays can be way, way more energetic - and we still didn't find any trace of black hole during cosmic ray events yet. But this argument can be reversed easily. If the long-lived s-tau does exist, it should already have been found in secondary cosmic rays. It hasn't, so it probably does not exist - or the LHC safety argument is wrong...;-) Why we are expecting the formation of s-tau in LHC, after then?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small; line-height: 100%;">Tauon particle is ultraheavy lepton, composed of pair of strange quarks (</span><span style="font-size: x-small; line-height: 100%;">1/3 and 2/3 of electron charge</span><span style="font-size: x-small; line-height: 100%;">). Analogously to muon, it could catalyze high temperature fusion of lithium and beryllium atom nuclei - so it was proposed for explanation of seemingly missing lithium problem in Big Bang model. This prediction means, if we collect sufficient amount of tau particles, the resulting cluster of tauons could survive for minutes, thus becoming strangelet. AWT proposes an explanation, based on dense droplet model of strangelet formation. Cosmic rays are always individual particles, mostly protons - whereas LHC jet is dense stream of particles, enabling pilling of particles and formation of microscopic black holes and strangelets. Energy density isn't the only criterion of strangelet formation here - the particle mass density and their collision geometry plays a significant role here too. BTW IMO there are better adepts for strangelet formation, composed of neutral and more stable particles, then just tauons (compare the recent observation of muon pairs in FermiLab, which could be attributed to s-muons). </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small; line-height: 100%;">The problem with s-tau s-particle is, its strangelet should be very stable, being formed by heaviest dense leptons known so far - but the precursor (i.e. tauon) is extremelly unstable stuff. The optimal approach should balance the stability of both strangelet, both its precursors. From this perspective s-muon is a better candidate for SUSY detection and in fact it was observed already in form of spooky muon pairs well outside of collider tube on Tevatron before year - i.e. in simmilar way, like top-quark pairs in 2008, which could serve as an evidence of heavy Higgs. As we can see, formal theory is one thing - the understanding, where to look for its confirmation is another one. Interesting point of these extrapolations (predictions of postdictions) is, I'm foreshadowing the future interpretation of the past events. Couldn't it be an example of situation, in which future affects the past - which <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1919">was predicted</a> by some quantum theorists recently (compare the critique <a href="http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/07/21/respectable-physicists-gone-crackpotty/">here</a>)?<br />
</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small; line-height: 100%;">AWT connection of SUSY to strangelets brings another problem to popular dark matter models: WIMPS particles are forming surface waves of these droplets - so they shouldn't exist independently to these strangelets. If dark matter is full of WIMPS, it should contain many strangelets as well. Such models really exists for example in context of string theory: Randall-Sundrum braneworlds models considers existence of primordial microscopical black holes, which could play a role of strangelets here. But strangelets aren't very stable in general and currently the only stable strangelets known so far are atom nuclei. So we can expect, dark matter contains atom nuclei in accordance to Alfen's plasma universe model and WIMPS models of dark matter are BS - or strangelets aren't related to AWT model in any way. As we can see, there's still a lotta strange concerns about SUSY. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small; line-height: 100%;">SUSY is quite general geometrical concept, which could be expressed in proverbs: "<i>Ne quid nimis</i>" (Nothing in excess) or "<i>The road to hell is paved with good intentions</i>" (El infierno está empedrado de buenas intenciones) and it has many social and political analogies. It means, when we advance in technology too fast, we can surpass our social and moral ability to handle it. After then the technology wouldn't help us - on the contrary. We should always ballance practical pros and negatives. In contemporary level of technology and life environment pollution we should orient into cold fusion or room superconductivity research ASAP, because it can save us from geopolitical crisis resulting from fight for remnants of fossil fuel supplies and consequences of global warming droughts. In this moment, LHC research is expensive and dangerous luxury, which can be achieved in much more safe and effective way in cosmic space. In addition, we could save money for vacuum pumps, refrigerators, magnets keeping particles at curved path, isolation against noise, etc... </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small; line-height: 100%;">The stance of contemporary science seems to be quite irresponsible for me. Scientists are like children, who want their toy just now - although they've no idea, how to use it and how dangerous it really may be. We already collected large enough list of experimental evidence, we are rather close to point of spontaneous strangelet formation of many particle types from gluons or quarks to neutrons. In this way, the success of human civilization lead by mainstream science in SUSY detection could become its very last achievement in the same moment.</span>Zephirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.com37tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-68804671433109559582009-10-16T03:23:00.000-07:002010-01-23T11:23:39.646-08:00Can Time-travelling Higgs sabotage the LHC?This post is motivated by recent <a closure_hashcode_74t4eq="867" href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.0359" target="_blank">paper by H. Nielsen and M. Ninomiya</a> and related <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/10/is-a-time-travelling-higgs-sab.html">NewScientist article</a> and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/science/space/13lhc.html?_r=1&em=&pagewanted=all">New York Times essay</a>, 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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider">SSC</a> 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 <a href="http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/07/21/respectable-physicists-gone-crackpotty/">accusation from crackpotism</a>, which obligued some formally thinking bloggers <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/10/14/spooky-signals-from-the-future-telling-us-to-cancel-the-lhc/">to vindicate</a> this generally accepted difference between speculation and crackpottery. Anyway, as the result of ongoing discussion, <a href="http://www.math.columbia.edu/%7Ewoit/wordpress/?p=2384">arXiv has reclassified</a> related papers to "less serious" General Physics section.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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 <a href="http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/cisp/2008/00000022/00000002/art00002;jsessionid=i16ibd3km7as.alexandra">mere reshuffling </a>of degrees of freedom by transforming the Higgs Lagrangian in a gauge-invariant manner. Well known "<a href="http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/11353">hierarchy problem</a>" 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.<br />
<br />
We are facing this conceptual confusion clearly at the moment, when mainstream physics presents some discrete predictions about Higgs boson. Each particle that couples to the Higgs field has a Yukawa coupling, too. The mass of a fermion is proportional to its Yukawa coupling, meaning that the Higgs boson will couple to the most massive particle. This means that the most significant corrections to the Higgs mass will originate from the heaviest particles, most prominently the top quark. 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 <a href="http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/WWW/WWW/groups/d0/teaching/higgsdecay2.html">is supposed to be proved and detected</a> at LHC:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/nuclear/higgs/dilepton_decay.gif" /><br />
</div>And the way, in which formation of top-quark pairs <a href="http://hepwww.rl.ac.uk/public/Phil/topquark/tqevid.html">was evidenced and detected</a> already at Fermilab:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/nuclear/higgs/fermilab_decay.gif" /><br />
</div><br />
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 <a closure_hashcode_74t4eq="867" href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.0359" target="_blank">Nielsen & Ninomiya</a> 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. In another way, physicists didn't recognize the duality of heaviest particle of matter (top quark) and Higgs boson in similar way, in which they didn't recognize the duality of most lightweight photons and gravitational waves at the opposite side of energy density spectrum. <br />
<br />
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 <a href="http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/21822">violation of gravitational law</a>, <a href="http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/17025">while ignoring Casimir force</a>, or they trying to <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/09/awt-and-gravitational-waves.html">search for gravitational waves</a>, while filtering out noise from detectors, just because they don't understand their subject at transparent, intuitive level.<br />
<br />
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.Zephirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-73208891106156606632009-10-12T21:04:00.000-07:002009-10-12T22:38:32.629-07:00Rachel Bean: GR is probably (98%) wrongThis post is motivated by recent finding of <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.3853">Rachel Bean</a>, 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 <a href="http://tinyurl.com/yzy3b7v">Sean Carroll</a> and/or <a href="http://tinyurl.com/yfhfb2b">Lubos Motl</a> are careful, as someone may expect : "<span style="font-style: italic;">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...</span>"<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations">Einstein's field equations</a> more consequently and thoroughly.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/spacetime/yilmaz-heim.jpg"><img src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/spacetime/yilmaz-heim.gif" border="0" /></a><br /><br />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 <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/03/inconsistency-of-general-relativity.html">fifty years old</a> 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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physmatics#Physmatics">physmatics</a> 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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein-Cartan_theory">Cartan</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%C3%A2%E2%82%AC%E2%80%9CCartan%C3%A2%E2%82%AC%E2%80%9CEvans_theory">Evans</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory">Heim</a>, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02899296">Yilmaz</a>, <a href="http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v70/i8/e083509">J. Bekenstein</a> or <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.1110">Rudi V. Nieuwenhove</a> 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.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://finbot.wordpress.com/">revealed again</a> in another, slightly different connection, when everyone appears surprised, how is it possible, GR isn't working properly?Zephirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.com12